THIS explanation works; A simple to follow analogy:

[rightwinger]

Actually, the e-mail I got with the joking analogy didn't fall on its face at all. Not even a little.

Certainly, your effort to "refute" the analogy was a fail, though.

But in reality, it wouldn't matter if all the debts were equal or not. The pretense of making all the debts be the same $100.00 was obviously just part of the simplification process to make the point without all your clutter. Nevertheless, if the debts had been of varying different sizes, the fact would STILL remain that that same $100.00 would have been passed around as late payment (or partial payment) for prior "services" rendered or for services provided or for products sold.

There actually IS a multiplier effect in economics.

But you knew that. Odd that you couldn't even acknowledge it in your rush to be cynical and dismissive.

Sorry my dear friend...but your attempt at being profound was...

FAIL


Why don't ya tell us the one again about the grasshopper and the ant

A well reasoned and highly developed refutation of the e-mailed analogy I shared in the Original Post here.

No. Wait. It wasn't, actually.

In fact, it was just you, ploddingly and predictably, reasserting your mere opinion.

Carry on, Leftwinger.

I did like the part about the hooker and the pig farmer though..
Maybe you can work from there. Republicans love hookers and pigs

Your attempt at correlating it to liberal phylosophy= FAIL

 

[xotoxi]

The hotel owner is an idiot...he just screwed himself out of $100 and the hooker got free room at the hotel.



But that's what he gets for stealing.

You understand the hotel owner is analogous to Obama, right?

Are you implying that Obama rents out the Lincoln Bedroom to whores?

 

[rightwinger]

The Obamacare taxes have already kicked in, however, even though there are weveral years to go before any health "benefits" start to flow, and even though the law has been found to be entirely unConstitutional and may yet get the silver bullet in the brain and the wooden stake through its heart.

So, the reality is: everybody is still in debt and there are still no services rendered in exchange for such payments.

That's how Obamacare ties in to the "stimulus" packages. The latter is an illusion and the former is an expensive wasteful bunko game.

Thanks libs.

So your analogy fell on its face...
Whats the word?? Oh yes...............FAIL

What else ya got for us today?

Actually, the e-mail I got with the joking analogy didn't fall on its face at all. Not even a little.

Certainly, your effort to "refute" the analogy was a fail, though.

But in reality, it wouldn't matter if all the debts were equal or not. The pretense of making all the debts be the same $100.00 was obviously just part of the simplification process to make the point without all your clutter. Nevertheless, if the debts had been of varying different sizes, the fact would STILL remain that that same $100.00 would have been passed around as late payment (or partial payment) for prior "services" rendered or for services provided or for products sold.

There actually IS a multiplier effect in economics.

But you knew that. Odd that you couldn't even acknowledge it in your rush to be cynical and dismissive.

Other than to prove once again that Conservatives are not good at math......Your analogy is a FAIL

The same result could have been obtained without passing around the $100

Nice try...but everyone is still laughing at you

 

[The Infidel]

Yep...but the story doesn't hold water therefore we can declare thread fail.

Sounds like the Obama regime
FAIL

 

[The Infidel]

The same result could have been obtained without passing around the $100

It would have been more realistic if the hotel owner just owned a printing press to print own $100 bills

 

[rightwinger]

The same result could have been obtained without passing around the $100

It would have been more realistic if the hotel owner just owned a printing press to print own $100 bills

It would have been even better if he owned a time machine....makes as much sense

 

[signelect]

Man that story generated a lot of comment but the comparason to Obama stimulus made as much sense as any of it. It was all smoke and mirrors but at least Acron got its share and we know that is where Obama learned to dance. I agree that they started with a mess but with due diligence were able to make it worse buy taking people who can't hold a job in the private sector and putting them in charge.

 

[The Infidel]

The same result could have been obtained without passing around the $100

It would have been more realistic if the hotel owner just owned a printing press to print own $100 bills

It would have been even better if he owned a time machine....makes as much sense

Wouldnt that be fun....?

 

[B. Kidd]

The same result could have been obtained without passing around the $100

It would have been more realistic if the hotel owner just owned a printing press to print own $100 bills

It would have been even better if he owned a time machine....makes as much sense

And not just any time machine, but a hot-tub time machine. But that would make the story unoriginal and un-profounder.
Bottom line, it's just a fuked up story.

 

[pinqy]

But in reality, it wouldn't matter if all the debts were equal or not.
The pretense of making all the debts be the same $100.00 was obviously just part of the simplification process to make the point without all your clutter. Nevertheless, if the debts had been of varying different sizes, the fact would STILL remain that that same $100.00 would have been passed around as late payment (or partial payment) for prior "services" rendered or for services provided or for products sold.

Is it really that hard for you to comprehend that no one was in debt? Every person in the story had $100 credit and $100 debit. Everyone was already at a zero balance.

Look at it this way....Let's say the Co-Op guy decided to call in the debt from the pig farmer. The pig farmer says he doesn't have the money but will transfer the debt from the butcher. So the pig farmer no longer owes the Co-Op guy, and the butcher now does. But the butcher says he doesn't have the money either, but will transfer the debt owed by the hotel manager. So now the butcher neither owes nor is owed, and the hotel manager owes the Co-Op guy. And again, hotel manager transfers the debt from the hooker, so he's clear and the Co-Op guy is owed $100 by the hooker and also owes her.

The $100 bill was meaningless. The net assets of the group was zero, the individual debt was zero.

Again...Debt is when you owe more than you are owed. Which was not the case here.

Tere actually IS a multiplier effect in economics.

Yes there is, but you haven't demonstrated it with the story. The story has nothing to do with economics...it's an accounting trick.

 

[Paulie]

But in reality, it wouldn't matter if all the debts were equal or not.
The pretense of making all the debts be the same $100.00 was obviously just part of the simplification process to make the point without all your clutter. Nevertheless, if the debts had been of varying different sizes, the fact would STILL remain that that same $100.00 would have been passed around as late payment (or partial payment) for prior "services" rendered or for services provided or for products sold.

Is it really that hard for you to comprehend that no one was in debt? Every person in the story had $100 credit and $100 debit. Everyone was already at a zero balance.

Look at it this way....Let's say the Co-Op guy decided to call in the debt from the pig farmer. The pig farmer says he doesn't have the money but will transfer the debt from the butcher. So the pig farmer no longer owes the Co-Op guy, and the butcher now does. But the butcher says he doesn't have the money either, but will transfer the debt owed by the hotel manager. So now the butcher neither owes nor is owed, and the hotel manager owes the Co-Op guy. And again, hotel manager transfers the debt from the hooker, so he's clear and the Co-Op guy is owed $100 by the hooker and also owes her.

The $100 bill was meaningless. The net assets of the group was zero, the individual debt was zero.

Again...Debt is when you owe more than you are owed. Which was not the case here.

Tere actually IS a multiplier effect in economics.

Yes there is, but you haven't demonstrated it with the story. The story has nothing to do with economics...it's an accounting trick.

All you're really doing is trying explain the problem away via creative accounting on a balance sheet.

Just because someone owes you $100 while you owe someone else $100, doesn't mean you're out of the woods.

What if your creditor calls in your debt for that $100, and your debtor is nowhere to be found?

Your "net $0" means jack shit in that case.

 

[pinqy]

All you're really doing is trying explain the problem away via creative accounting on a balance sheet..

It's not creative accounting, it's regular accounting. The kind they teach in high school.

 

[Liability]

Sorry my dear friend...but your attempt at being profound was...

FAIL


Why don't ya tell us the one again about the grasshopper and the ant

A well reasoned and highly developed refutation of the e-mailed analogy I shared in the Original Post here.

No. Wait. It wasn't, actually.

In fact, it was just you, ploddingly and predictably, reasserting your mere opinion.

Carry on, Leftwinger.

I did like the part about the hooker and the pig farmer though..
Maybe you can work from there. Republicans love hookers and pigs

Your attempt at correlating it to liberal phylosophy= FAIL

No no. Your rejoinder was the fail, no matter how often you congratulate yourself over it.

But I am glad the silly little e-mail has you all worked up.

That's adorable.

 

[rightwinger]

A well reasoned and highly developed refutation of the e-mailed analogy I shared in the Original Post here.

No. Wait. It wasn't, actually.

In fact, it was just you, ploddingly and predictably, reasserting your mere opinion.

Carry on, Leftwinger.

I did like the part about the hooker and the pig farmer though..
Maybe you can work from there. Republicans love hookers and pigs

Your attempt at correlating it to liberal phylosophy= FAIL

No no. Your rejoinder was the fail, no matter how often you congratulate yourself over it.

But I am glad the silly little e-mail has you all worked up.

That's adorable.

All your silly little email did was demonstrate that conservatives lack basic math skills. Did you see how everyone quickly tore apart your little analogy?

Once again, another Liability thread crashes in FAIL

 

[Liability]

But in reality, it wouldn't matter if all the debts were equal or not.
The pretense of making all the debts be the same $100.00 was obviously just part of the simplification process to make the point without all your clutter. Nevertheless, if the debts had been of varying different sizes, the fact would STILL remain that that same $100.00 would have been passed around as late payment (or partial payment) for prior "services" rendered or for services provided or for products sold.

Is it really that hard for you to comprehend that no one was in debt? Every person in the story had $100 credit and $100 debit. Everyone was already at a zero balance.

Look at it this way....Let's say the Co-Op guy decided to call in the debt from the pig farmer. The pig farmer says he doesn't have the money but will transfer the debt from the butcher. So the pig farmer no longer owes the Co-Op guy, and the butcher now does. But the butcher says he doesn't have the money either, but will transfer the debt owed by the hotel manager. So now the butcher neither owes nor is owed, and the hotel manager owes the Co-Op guy. And again, hotel manager transfers the debt from the hooker, so he's clear and the Co-Op guy is owed $100 by the hooker and also owes her.

The $100 bill was meaningless. The net assets of the group was zero, the individual debt was zero.

Again...Debt is when you owe more than you are owed. Which was not the case here.

Tere actually IS a multiplier effect in economics.

Yes there is, but you haven't demonstrated it with the story. The story has nothing to do with economics...it's an accounting trick.

I'm proud of you.

Yes, the Obama stimulus plans ARE nothing but accounting tricks.

 

[Liability]

I did like the part about the hooker and the pig farmer though..
Maybe you can work from there. Republicans love hookers and pigs

Your attempt at correlating it to liberal phylosophy= FAIL

No no. Your rejoinder was the fail, no matter how often you congratulate yourself over it.

But I am glad the silly little e-mail has you all worked up.

That's adorable.

All your silly little email did was demonstrate that conservatives lack basic math skills. Did you see how everyone quickly tore apart your little analogy?

Once again, another Liability thread crashes in FAIL

Do you see how you studiously miss the point?

Most of the rest of us do.

 

[rightwinger]

No no. Your rejoinder was the fail, no matter how often you congratulate yourself over it.

But I am glad the silly little e-mail has you all worked up.

That's adorable.

All your silly little email did was demonstrate that conservatives lack basic math skills. Did you see how everyone quickly tore apart your little analogy?

Once again, another Liability thread crashes in FAIL

Do you see how you studiously miss the point?

Most of the rest of us do.

What are you....like Willow and Stephanie and just post whatever crap shows up in your email?

If you bothered to read what you post, you wouldn't be embarrassed like you were on this thread

 

[pinqy]

But in reality, it wouldn't matter if all the debts were equal or not.
The pretense of making all the debts be the same $100.00 was obviously just part of the simplification process to make the point without all your clutter. Nevertheless, if the debts had been of varying different sizes, the fact would STILL remain that that same $100.00 would have been passed around as late payment (or partial payment) for prior "services" rendered or for services provided or for products sold.

Is it really that hard for you to comprehend that no one was in debt? Every person in the story had $100 credit and $100 debit. Everyone was already at a zero balance.

Look at it this way....Let's say the Co-Op guy decided to call in the debt from the pig farmer. The pig farmer says he doesn't have the money but will transfer the debt from the butcher. So the pig farmer no longer owes the Co-Op guy, and the butcher now does. But the butcher says he doesn't have the money either, but will transfer the debt owed by the hotel manager. So now the butcher neither owes nor is owed, and the hotel manager owes the Co-Op guy. And again, hotel manager transfers the debt from the hooker, so he's clear and the Co-Op guy is owed $100 by the hooker and also owes her.

The $100 bill was meaningless. The net assets of the group was zero, the individual debt was zero.

Again...Debt is when you owe more than you are owed. Which was not the case here.

Tere actually IS a multiplier effect in economics.

Yes there is, but you haven't demonstrated it with the story. The story has nothing to do with economics...it's an accounting trick.

I'm proud of you.

Yes, the Obama stimulus plans ARE nothing but accounting tricks.

You really don't see that the analogy, which does NOT increase the money supply for the town, is nothing at all like the Stimulus, which did increase the money supply.

But let's play, go ahead and explain the money multiplier effect, (and throw in velocity as well, because that plays a role in the stimulus), and how your analogy fits. I'll be here to correct your inevitable errors.

 

[Ravi]

Liarbility's failure could aptly be titled A Pig in a Poke.

 

[Liability]

Liarbility's failure could aptly be titled A Pig in a Poke.

That would make my alleged failure a "Ravi."