Rubber is for a gun and for shot Gun use.
California good guys use silver bullets.

I suppose we can go out after the ecological types since DDT was the last
reason now it is Lead. I thought it was politicians myself!

we '''can't''' kill rattle snakes they are endangered species... NOT!

The state holds several large roundups every year. There never seems to
be a lack of snake to bring in to milk and to cook. Someone somewhere
found the right person and got a ruling. Likely in downtown Dallas.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:32 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:00:52 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Lead is at $1.80/lb these days, up from 40 cents a year ago and 20 cents
five years ago.
http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/lead_historical.html
What is the problem with world market for this metal?
Suddenly those neurotic hoards of old car batteries in the back yard don't
look so crazy.
You're going to have to put a burglar alarm
on that sailboat keel of yours...
Im gonna have to start using silver or gold for bullets....

Gunner

How about rubber?

TMT


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Oct 15, 4:15 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:34:35 -0400, Wes wrote:
john wrote:

The Chinese are not paronoid like we are in the US. We treat lead like
U238 uranium because of all the hype from the media. Don't eat lead or
lead paint. Dont eat **** either, neither is too good for you.

38 years of casting lead bullets, loading, and shooting and I'm still here.
Something else is going to kill me first.

Not the point, though. The chinese know that we don't allow lead in our
toys and toothpaste, and they use it in products exported to us anyway.
They've killed our pets by poisoning wheat gluten, by contaminating it
with chemicals to make it test higher in a primitive protein test.
We've gone well past the point of them trading in good faith, and at
this point, they're exploiting the "most favored trade nation status"
that clinton gave them in exchange for those campaign contributions.

I think it's time we revoke the special deals that clinton gave the
chinese. And I _really_ think that, instead of just saying "wups, sorry
about that" and recalling the items they get caught on, the American
companies who import this tainted crap should get fined into oblivion.

LOL....apparently no one has told you that Bush and the now defeated
Republican Congress have been around for all those years that the
Chinese was shipping this stuff to the USA..

We did it to ourselves....and the only one who will fix the problem is
ourselves.

Try restoring the funding cut by Bush for the inspectors that were
supposed to be checking would be a good first step.

TMT

David Harmon wrote in article
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:07:04 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "*"
wrote,
We could simply stop buying Chinese-made toys.

You mean stop buying from Harbor Freight?
Not going to happen. Now go away.



I was, actually, referring to the "toys" of a much younger age
group...........

Gerald Miller wrote:

Senior son at around 18 months found a solution to the wet bed
problem; he would stand in the corner of his crib, pull down his
diaper and direct the stream at his younger brother in the adjacent
crib.

So how do they get along now?

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"David Harmon" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:17:43 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Adam
Corolla" wrote,
Then you'll have to go with tungsten, or maybe iridium... You can get
pure
tungsten for three dollars an ounce, and it's about 75% heavier than
lead!
But I guess even with lead's price increase, it's still much cheaper
than
tungsten.

Some time ago I found a used carbide diamond-shaped tool insert lying on
the sidewalk. I don't use insert tooling, so I was surprised to find how
heavy it was for the small size. Tungsten carbide, presumably. How
much does used carbide go for per pound? Would sinkers or boat keels
molded of used inserts embedded in epoxy be economical?

Well, tungsten carbide is of course much less dense than pure tungsten,
but still denser than lead I believe. I guess it would depend on the
ratio. My guess is that they would not be economical--due to the much
higher price of tungsten scrap vs. lead scrap.

The biggest problem you'd face is fabricating. How would you propose it
be fashioned? Tungsten melts at such a high temperature that it is not
feasible to melt the stuff. It's generally handled via powder metallurgy.
It's clearly beyond the ability of the average home type individual.
Damned expensive, too.

Harold

Yeah... Though an acetylene/oxy torch can get slightly hotter than the
temperature it takes to melt tungsten, what do you melt the tungsten *in*?
A crucible made of any other material would melt before the tungsten, right?
Plus, you'd have to be able to concentrate the heat *really* well or radiant
and convective cooling would prevent the W from ever getting anywhere near
as hot as the torch... Yeah, I can see where it would be very difficult.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:36:46 -0400, Wes wrote:

Gerald Miller wrote:

Senior son at around 18 months found a solution to the wet bed
problem; he would stand in the corner of his crib, pull down his
diaper and direct the stream at his younger brother in the adjacent
crib.

So how do they get along now?
NO! Fortunately one lives in London UK while the other lives just
outside this London.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:55:07 -0700, "William Noble"
wrote:



We own a fishing tackle store here in South Africa - the price of
lead here too has rocketed - even here the lead is being sent to China
from the scrap merchants - not good for sinker prices !!!! Soon it
wont only be Bismuth sinkers that are outrageously priced !!!

Tim

Then you'll have to go with tungsten, or maybe iridium... You can get
pure tungsten for three dollars an ounce, and it's about 75% heavier than
lead! But I guess even with lead's price increase, it's still much cheaper
than tungsten. Iridium is almost double the density of pure lead, but an
ounce of iridium would be over seven hundred dollars. You'd have to be
one wildly successful fisherman to justify iridium sinkers...


and what is wrong with using a rock for a sinker? they are still free


A lot of carbide inserts come with a hole molded in them to help when
attaching to the line :-)

Mark Rand
RTFM

"William Noble" wrote in message
.. .


We own a fishing tackle store here in South Africa - the price of
lead here too has rocketed - even here the lead is being sent to China
from the scrap merchants - not good for sinker prices !!!! Soon it
wont only be Bismuth sinkers that are outrageously priced !!!

Tim

Then you'll have to go with tungsten, or maybe iridium... You can get
pure tungsten for three dollars an ounce, and it's about 75% heavier than
lead! But I guess even with lead's price increase, it's still much
cheaper than tungsten. Iridium is almost double the density of pure
lead, but an ounce of iridium would be over seven hundred dollars. You'd
have to be one wildly successful fisherman to justify iridium sinkers...


and what is wrong with using a rock for a sinker? they are still free

Well, then, why not use rocks in place of toilet paper? After all, rocks
are free, right?

Just because something is free doesn't mean it's good to be used for any
particular thing.

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Hawke" wrote:

I can understand the price of brass and lead going through the roof. They
are going through unreal amounts of ammunition in Iraq. The ammo
producers
are having a hard time keeping up. I tried to buy 2000 .38 caliber lead
bullets from my regular supplier last month and they didn't have any,
haven't had any for a long time, and don't know when they will get more.
They blamed it on the war, which is probably right. I have seen the price
for .45 ACP lead bullets go up just about every time I reorder. A year or
so
ago I was paying something like four or five cents a bullet. I just got a
1000 bullets last week and it cost me 90 bucks. It's getting to the point
where I am going to have to start casting bullets again. I go through a
lot
of lead and the price is getting so high that casting is starting to
become
a reality again. But it's so boring and time consuming I hate to have to
start doing it again.

Hawke


OSB prices went nuts after start of the war and are back to normal or at
least close to it.

Casting lead isn't that boring. Since you apparently reload already you
have
some tolerance for repeated manual opperations. For pistol work cast lead
works just fine. I tend to watch tv (cspan) while casting so it isn't
totally dead time.

I gotta rebuild my 50 yard backstop next year. I made it out of 4' x 4'
panels of scrap osb from work a few years ago built into a box filled with
sand. The OSB has failed on one side. I'm going to use pressure treated
this time and it think it is time to sift the sand that fills it to get my
lead back.

Cast is good stuff for many applications. http://www.castbulletassoc.org/

If you are sold on jacketed, have you considerd swaging aka corbin?

Wes

I'm not sold on jacked at all. In fact, I shoot almost exclusively lead. Up
until recently lead bullets were reasonably priced and allowed me to shoot
my customary 300 rounds a week pretty inexpensively. Now it's getting way
too expensive. Like I said, I don't relish casting over a thousand lead
bullets a month. But what's worse than the casting is the lube/sizing that
has to be done too. That really makes it a time consuming pain in the ass.
But with .45 caliber bullets going to .09 a piece I may start up again. One
good thing is that my supplier for .357 hollow base wadcutters has some in
stock, not the 2000 I wanted but he has a few 500 piece bags and they still
go for around a nickel each. That's more like it. I guess I'll have to hope
for a recession so commodities will be in less demand and prices will come
down. Looks like you get a bad deal either way. Prices only go in one
direction...up. I sure wish they would stop printing so much money. It's
getting to be worthless. I bought a loaf of rye bread today. It was $3.27.
The money is getting worth less and less every day.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
snip-----

I sure wish they would stop printing so much money. It's
getting to be worthless.

Chuckle!

Getting to be worthless? I think we passed "getting to be" one hell of a
long time ago.


I bought a loaf of rye bread today. It was $3.27.
The money is getting worth less and less every day.

Hawke


Now there's a man after my own heart. I love rye bread. Good on ya',
Hawke.

Harold

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"David Harmon" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:17:43 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Adam
Corolla" wrote,
Then you'll have to go with tungsten, or maybe iridium... You can get
pure
tungsten for three dollars an ounce, and it's about 75% heavier than
lead!
But I guess even with lead's price increase, it's still much cheaper
than
tungsten.

Some time ago I found a used carbide diamond-shaped tool insert lying
on
the sidewalk. I don't use insert tooling, so I was surprised to find
how
heavy it was for the small size. Tungsten carbide, presumably. How
much does used carbide go for per pound? Would sinkers or boat keels
molded of used inserts embedded in epoxy be economical?

Well, tungsten carbide is of course much less dense than pure tungsten,
but still denser than lead I believe. I guess it would depend on the
ratio. My guess is that they would not be economical--due to the much
higher price of tungsten scrap vs. lead scrap.

The biggest problem you'd face is fabricating. How would you propose it
be fashioned? Tungsten melts at such a high temperature that it is not
feasible to melt the stuff. It's generally handled via powder metallurgy.
It's clearly beyond the ability of the average home type individual.
Damned expensive, too.

Harold

Yeah... Though an acetylene/oxy torch can get slightly hotter than the
temperature it takes to melt tungsten, what do you melt the tungsten *in*?
A crucible made of any other material would melt before the tungsten,
right? Plus, you'd have to be able to concentrate the heat *really* well
or radiant and convective cooling would prevent the W from ever getting
anywhere near as hot as the torch... Yeah, I can see where it would be
very difficult.


Achieving the temperature isn't the problem. We can do that with an
induction furnace. As you alluded, containing the heat is. Tungsten melts
well above almost everything---something like double the temp required to
melt high temperature refractories.

Harold

On Oct 22, 7:57 pm, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:
"William Noble" wrote in message

.. .





We own a fishing tackle store here in South Africa - the price of
lead here too has rocketed - even here the lead is being sent to China
from the scrap merchants - not good for sinker prices !!!! Soon it
wont only be Bismuth sinkers that are outrageously priced !!!

Tim

Then you'll have to go with tungsten, or maybe iridium... You can get
pure tungsten for three dollars an ounce, and it's about 75% heavier than
lead! But I guess even with lead's price increase, it's still much
cheaper than tungsten. Iridium is almost double the density of pure
lead, but an ounce of iridium would be over seven hundred dollars. You'd
have to be one wildly successful fisherman to justify iridium sinkers...

and what is wrong with using a rock for a sinker? they are still free

Well, then, why not use rocks in place of toilet paper? After all, rocks
are free, right?

Just because something is free doesn't mean it's good to be used for any
particular thing.

although in this case "rock" is semi suitable

slighty more so than using unwanted laser printed sheets of paper as
toilet paper (Can you imagine the paper cuts that would cause in the
LAST place you EVER want a paper cut)

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
. net...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"David Harmon" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:17:43 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Adam
Corolla" wrote,
Then you'll have to go with tungsten, or maybe iridium... You can get
pure
tungsten for three dollars an ounce, and it's about 75% heavier than
lead!
But I guess even with lead's price increase, it's still much cheaper
than
tungsten.

Some time ago I found a used carbide diamond-shaped tool insert lying
on
the sidewalk. I don't use insert tooling, so I was surprised to find
how
heavy it was for the small size. Tungsten carbide, presumably. How
much does used carbide go for per pound? Would sinkers or boat keels
molded of used inserts embedded in epoxy be economical?

Well, tungsten carbide is of course much less dense than pure tungsten,
but still denser than lead I believe. I guess it would depend on the
ratio. My guess is that they would not be economical--due to the much
higher price of tungsten scrap vs. lead scrap.

The biggest problem you'd face is fabricating. How would you propose it
be fashioned? Tungsten melts at such a high temperature that it is not
feasible to melt the stuff. It's generally handled via powder
metallurgy. It's clearly beyond the ability of the average home type
individual. Damned expensive, too.

Harold

Yeah... Though an acetylene/oxy torch can get slightly hotter than the
temperature it takes to melt tungsten, what do you melt the tungsten
*in*? A crucible made of any other material would melt before the
tungsten, right? Plus, you'd have to be able to concentrate the heat
*really* well or radiant and convective cooling would prevent the W from
ever getting anywhere near as hot as the torch... Yeah, I can see where
it would be very difficult.


Achieving the temperature isn't the problem. We can do that with an
induction furnace. As you alluded, containing the heat is. Tungsten
melts well above almost everything---something like double the temp
required to melt high temperature refractories.

Harold

Melting point [/K]: 3695 [or 3422 °C (6192 °F)]

Best Regards
Tom.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:20:24 -0700, Brent wrote:




slighty more so than using unwanted laser printed sheets of paper as
toilet paper (Can you imagine the paper cuts that would cause in the
LAST place you EVER want a paper cut)

Funny you should mention that...

TOO MUCH INFORMATION

The place:- BALCO power station, India.

The problems:- Bog paper is in short supply and very expensive and the
screaming ****s are a regular occurrence.

The coincidence:-A large crate containing all our performance test equipment
for two Turbine performance tests had sat at Calcutta in the monsoon after
being opened by customs for inspection... 50lbs of HP Thinkjet printer paper
gone wrinkly due to getting wet.

The solution:- HP Thinkjet printer paper, when cut into half sheets and well
crumpled, makes excellent bog paper. Very strong. Quite soft and _much_ better
than nothing!

We did try photocopier paper, It wasn't nice.

/TOO MUCH INFORMATION

Mark Rand
RTFM

"azotic" wrote in message
news snip---

Melting point [/K]: 3695 [or 3422 °C (6192 °F)]

Best Regards
Tom.

'Thanks, Tom. Seems perfect for making toast! :-)

Harold

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:20:24 -0700, Brent wrote:




slighty more so than using unwanted laser printed sheets of paper as
toilet paper (Can you imagine the paper cuts that would cause in the
LAST place you EVER want a paper cut)

Funny you should mention that...

TOO MUCH INFORMATION

The place:- BALCO power station, India.

The problems:- Bog paper is in short supply and very expensive and the
screaming ****s are a regular occurrence.

The coincidence:-A large crate containing all our performance test
equipment
for two Turbine performance tests had sat at Calcutta in the monsoon after
being opened by customs for inspection... 50lbs of HP Thinkjet printer
paper
gone wrinkly due to getting wet.

The solution:- HP Thinkjet printer paper, when cut into half sheets and
well
crumpled, makes excellent bog paper. Very strong. Quite soft and _much_
better
than nothing!

We did try photocopier paper, It wasn't nice.

/TOO MUCH INFORMATION

Mark Rand
RTFM

Truly, information overload! :-)

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
. net...

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:20:24 -0700, Brent wrote:




slighty more so than using unwanted laser printed sheets of paper as
toilet paper (Can you imagine the paper cuts that would cause in the
LAST place you EVER want a paper cut)

Funny you should mention that...

TOO MUCH INFORMATION

The place:- BALCO power station, India.

The problems:- Bog paper is in short supply and very expensive and the
screaming ****s are a regular occurrence.

The coincidence:-A large crate containing all our performance test
equipment
for two Turbine performance tests had sat at Calcutta in the monsoon
after
being opened by customs for inspection... 50lbs of HP Thinkjet printer
paper
gone wrinkly due to getting wet.

The solution:- HP Thinkjet printer paper, when cut into half sheets and
well
crumpled, makes excellent bog paper. Very strong. Quite soft and _much_
better
than nothing!

We did try photocopier paper, It wasn't nice.

/TOO MUCH INFORMATION

Mark Rand
RTFM

Truly, information overload! :-)

Harold

Almost any paper, after being crumpled over and over for several minutes,
becomes *very* soft and pliable and suitable to use as bathroom tissue,
toilet paper, bog paper or whatever it's called in your neck of the woods.

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
. net...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"David Harmon" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:17:43 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Adam
Corolla" wrote,
Then you'll have to go with tungsten, or maybe iridium... You can get
pure
tungsten for three dollars an ounce, and it's about 75% heavier than
lead!
But I guess even with lead's price increase, it's still much cheaper
than
tungsten.

Some time ago I found a used carbide diamond-shaped tool insert lying
on
the sidewalk. I don't use insert tooling, so I was surprised to find
how
heavy it was for the small size. Tungsten carbide, presumably. How
much does used carbide go for per pound? Would sinkers or boat keels
molded of used inserts embedded in epoxy be economical?

Well, tungsten carbide is of course much less dense than pure tungsten,
but still denser than lead I believe. I guess it would depend on the
ratio. My guess is that they would not be economical--due to the much
higher price of tungsten scrap vs. lead scrap.

The biggest problem you'd face is fabricating. How would you propose it
be fashioned? Tungsten melts at such a high temperature that it is not
feasible to melt the stuff. It's generally handled via powder
metallurgy. It's clearly beyond the ability of the average home type
individual. Damned expensive, too.

Harold

Yeah... Though an acetylene/oxy torch can get slightly hotter than the
temperature it takes to melt tungsten, what do you melt the tungsten
*in*? A crucible made of any other material would melt before the
tungsten, right? Plus, you'd have to be able to concentrate the heat
*really* well or radiant and convective cooling would prevent the W from
ever getting anywhere near as hot as the torch... Yeah, I can see where
it would be very difficult.


Achieving the temperature isn't the problem. We can do that with an
induction furnace. As you alluded, containing the heat is. Tungsten
melts well above almost everything---something like double the temp
required to melt high temperature refractories.

Harold

I see. Is it ever necessary to actually melt tungsten?

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I sure wish they would stop printing so much money. It's
getting to be worthless.

Are you joking, or do you really believe that the amount of money that's
printed affects its value?

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
I sure wish they would stop printing so much money. It's
getting to be worthless. I bought a loaf of rye bread today. It was $3.27.
The money is getting worth less and less every day.

Hawke


OK, I posted a message asking if you were joking about this, but I later
thought it would make more sense to specify what part I am stuck on.

So here's the part I get, and the part I don't get.

Let's take the example of iridium, the element. It's price is around that
of gold (I'm not sure if that's accurate, but this is just an example.)
But, gold is much more common. The reason iridium isn't much more expensive
than gold is because there's not much demand for it.

So, a thing's value is based on how many people want it (and how badly they
want it) vs. how common or scarce it is (or more accurately, how easy it is
to get.)

So, if gold nuggets the size of golf balls suddenly appeared on every square
foot of the earth, the value of gold would drop to nothing, because if you
want some you can just go pick some up. I think you agree that this is
simple reasoning, I just want to set this as a starting point.

Money is probably the most desired thing there is, because it can be
exchanged for just about anything. So, the varying factor in its value will
be how easy it is to get.

If all the tree leaves and blades of grass became various denominations of
money, then money would be worthless. Not because there's more OF it, but
because it's easy to get. If the government printed five hundred trillion
dollars tomorrow and sealed it all away so no one could get to it, the value
of money wouldn't change even there's a hell of a lot more of it because
it's no easier to obtain. Do you agree?

Now, do you see where I'm going with this? When the government prints
additional money, how does that extra money make it easier to obtain a given
amount of it? Let's say the government opened the vault with the 500
trillion in it and did with it whatever they do with all the extra money
they print (which is what? I don't know.) How does that extra money make
money easier to obtain? Do all companies suddenly give raises when they
find out there's more money in the economy, so that money becomes easier to
obtain? I think the key here is in finding out what the government does
with the extra money. I'll be grateful to anyone who can explain that to
me.

In article , "Adam Corolla" wrote:

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I sure wish they would stop printing so much money. It's
getting to be worthless.

Are you joking, or do you really believe that the amount of money that's
printed affects its value?

Are you joking, or do you really fail to understand that it does?

It's a simple supply-and-demand issue.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Adam Corolla" wrote:
[snip]
Money is probably the most desired thing there is, because it can be
exchanged for just about anything. So, the varying factor in its value will
be how easy it is to get.

If all the tree leaves and blades of grass became various denominations of
money, then money would be worthless. Not because there's more OF it, but
because it's easy to get.

What you're missing is that it's easy to get because there's more of it.

If the government printed five hundred trillion
dollars tomorrow and sealed it all away so no one could get to it, the value
of money wouldn't change even there's a hell of a lot more of it because
it's no easier to obtain. Do you agree?

Obvious -- but so what? They don't do that. They print it, and then release it
into circulation.

Now, do you see where I'm going with this? When the government prints
additional money, how does that extra money make it easier to obtain a given
amount of it? Let's say the government opened the vault with the 500
trillion in it and did with it whatever they do with all the extra money
they print (which is what? I don't know.)

What do they do with it? They give a hell of a lot of it away.

How does that extra money make
money easier to obtain? Do all companies suddenly give raises when they
find out there's more money in the economy, so that money becomes easier to
obtain? I think the key here is in finding out what the government does
with the extra money. I'll be grateful to anyone who can explain that to
me.

Suggest you start with a good textbook on macroeconomics from your public
library.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

snip


Money is probably the most desired thing there is, because it can be
exchanged for just about anything. So, the varying factor in its value
will be how easy it is to get.

If all the tree leaves and blades of grass became various denominations of
money, then money would be worthless. Not because there's more OF it, but
because it's easy to get. If the government printed five hundred trillion
dollars tomorrow and sealed it all away so no one could get to it, the
value of money wouldn't change even there's a hell of a lot more of it
because it's no easier to obtain. Do you agree?

Now, do you see where I'm going with this? When the government prints
additional money, how does that extra money make it easier to obtain a
given amount of it? Let's say the government opened the vault with the
500 trillion in it and did with it whatever they do with all the extra
money they print (which is what? I don't know.) How does that extra
money make money easier to obtain? Do all companies suddenly give raises
when they find out there's more money in the economy, so that money
becomes easier to obtain? I think the key here is in finding out what the
government does with the extra money. I'll be grateful to anyone who can
explain that to me.

Printed dollars are only a small portion of the "money" that's available in
the economy. Most of it is in the form of demand deposits -- ciphers on a
page, or, today, bits in a computer. The cash is just based on a calculation
of how much of that "money" is needed to keep the wheels of commerce
greased.

The story of money is a confusing and tricky one. There are good
explanations written for college students of economics, and others written
for laymen. One of the most enjoyable of the latter is John Kenneth
Galbraith's _Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went_, but there are newer ones
that probably are more to the point. He takes you by way of the Babylonians
and ancient Greece to get to Wall Street. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...
snip-----

Is it ever necessary to actually melt tungsten?


I think the answer to that would be that if we had the capability to do so,
yes, melting it would open doors to making unknown items that are now not
possible.

Harold

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

snip


Money is probably the most desired thing there is, because it can be
exchanged for just about anything. So, the varying factor in its value
will be how easy it is to get.

If all the tree leaves and blades of grass became various denominations
of money, then money would be worthless. Not because there's more OF it,
but because it's easy to get. If the government printed five hundred
trillion dollars tomorrow and sealed it all away so no one could get to
it, the value of money wouldn't change even there's a hell of a lot more
of it because it's no easier to obtain. Do you agree?

Now, do you see where I'm going with this? When the government prints
additional money, how does that extra money make it easier to obtain a
given amount of it? Let's say the government opened the vault with the
500 trillion in it and did with it whatever they do with all the extra
money they print (which is what? I don't know.) How does that extra
money make money easier to obtain? Do all companies suddenly give raises
when they find out there's more money in the economy, so that money
becomes easier to obtain? I think the key here is in finding out what
the government does with the extra money. I'll be grateful to anyone who
can explain that to me.

Printed dollars are only a small portion of the "money" that's available
in the economy. Most of it is in the form of demand deposits -- ciphers on
a page, or, today, bits in a computer. The cash is just based on a
calculation of how much of that "money" is needed to keep the wheels of
commerce greased.

That makes a lot more sense to me than the simplistic belief that inflation
is caused by the government printing too much money.


The story of money is a confusing and tricky one.

I agree, but the particular questions I'm asking are not very complex at
all:

What does the government do with the extra money they print?

Is there a particular mechanism (or example of a mechanism) through which
printing more money directly causes the value of each monetary unit to drop?

It shouldn't take more than a few sentences to answer these questions for
the most part.

There are good explanations written for college students of economics, and
others written for laymen. One of the most enjoyable of the latter is John
Kenneth Galbraith's _Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went_, but there are
newer ones that probably are more to the point. He takes you by way of the
Babylonians and ancient Greece to get to Wall Street. g

--
Ed Huntress

That actually sounds somewhat interesting. However, can you answer the
particular question of what the feds do with the extra money they print--how
it gets into circulation?

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...
snip-----

Is it ever necessary to actually melt tungsten?


I think the answer to that would be that if we had the capability to do
so, yes, melting it would open doors to making unknown items that are now
not possible.

Harold


Cool... Thanks!

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Adam Corolla"
wrote:
[snip]
Money is probably the most desired thing there is, because it can be
exchanged for just about anything. So, the varying factor in its value
will
be how easy it is to get.

If all the tree leaves and blades of grass became various denominations of
money, then money would be worthless. Not because there's more OF it, but
because it's easy to get.

What you're missing is that it's easy to get because there's more of it.

If the government printed five hundred trillion
dollars tomorrow and sealed it all away so no one could get to it, the
value
of money wouldn't change even there's a hell of a lot more of it because
it's no easier to obtain. Do you agree?

Obvious -- but so what? They don't do that. They print it, and then
release it
into circulation.

Now, do you see where I'm going with this? When the government prints
additional money, how does that extra money make it easier to obtain a
given
amount of it? Let's say the government opened the vault with the 500
trillion in it and did with it whatever they do with all the extra money
they print (which is what? I don't know.)

What do they do with it? They give a hell of a lot of it away.

How does that extra money make
money easier to obtain? Do all companies suddenly give raises when they
find out there's more money in the economy, so that money becomes easier
to
obtain? I think the key here is in finding out what the government does
with the extra money. I'll be grateful to anyone who can explain that to
me.

Suggest you start with a good textbook on macroeconomics from your public
library.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


You didn't really answer my questions. Probably my fault for my rambling,
random style in my post--I apologize, I was very drowsy then.
I'll try to state my questions as clearly as possible.

1. How does the government's printing more money make money easier to
obtain? Can you give an example, lease?

2. What do you mean by "they release it into circulation"? This is the
crucial point, because as I explained, there being more of something (like
money) doesn't make that thing less valuable--it's the ease of obtaining it
which determines its value. No one I know has access to some percentage of
the "money in circulation." People draw wages or salaries, or sell things
to people who draw wages or salaries. If the government dumped a trillion
bucks "into circulation" tomorrow for example, by what mechanism would it
cause prices to rise?

For example, let's say I raise corn. My sale price of corn is based on my
cost to raise it and my profit margin. The only way I'm going to raise my
prices is if the demand for corn goes up vs. the supply and I can make more
profit, or if my expenses rise. My expenses may include electricity, water,
fuel, equipment and various chemicals.

3. "They give a hell of a lot of it away." So, when the government prints
extra currency, they give much of it away? Do you mean in handouts such as
veterans benefits, social security, disaster relief, foreign aid and such?

4. During times of high unemployment and layoffs, money becomes more
difficult to obtain. However, these times are not usually noted for low
inflation or deflation. Why?

The questions I'm asking don't require pages and pages of complicated
answers, just a few sentences will suffice. Therefore, the answer "go read
a book" will be taken as an admission that you don't know the answers.

Also, I would like to know if you hold the belief that reducing taxes
results in stimulation of the US economy which ends up bringing more income
into the government by increased tax revenue.

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

snip


Money is probably the most desired thing there is, because it can be
exchanged for just about anything. So, the varying factor in its value
will be how easy it is to get.

If all the tree leaves and blades of grass became various denominations
of money, then money would be worthless. Not because there's more OF
it, but because it's easy to get. If the government printed five
hundred trillion dollars tomorrow and sealed it all away so no one could
get to it, the value of money wouldn't change even there's a hell of a
lot more of it because it's no easier to obtain. Do you agree?

Now, do you see where I'm going with this? When the government prints
additional money, how does that extra money make it easier to obtain a
given amount of it? Let's say the government opened the vault with the
500 trillion in it and did with it whatever they do with all the extra
money they print (which is what? I don't know.) How does that extra
money make money easier to obtain? Do all companies suddenly give
raises when they find out there's more money in the economy, so that
money becomes easier to obtain? I think the key here is in finding out
what the government does with the extra money. I'll be grateful to
anyone who can explain that to me.

Printed dollars are only a small portion of the "money" that's available
in the economy. Most of it is in the form of demand deposits -- ciphers
on a page, or, today, bits in a computer. The cash is just based on a
calculation of how much of that "money" is needed to keep the wheels of
commerce greased.

That makes a lot more sense to me than the simplistic belief that
inflation is caused by the government printing too much money.

To the extent that monetary policy causes or limits inflation (it's a big
factor), the policy that has most to do with it is the setting of overnight
lending rates -- the rate controlled by the Fed, and the one that gets so
much attention when the Fed makes a fractional change in the rate. Through
an indirect chain of events this influences loans and thus the amount of
money in circulation. There are other factors, such as changes in the
reserve ratios that banks are required to hold, and then a whole variety of
other things that get involved. And then there is fiscal policy.

The simple way to describe it is that changes in the money supply is the
result of how many loans are granted by banks. I would not recommend trying
to understand this by means of messages in a NG. You'll need a good book,
especially to see the theory and the practice of controlling inflation.



The story of money is a confusing and tricky one.

I agree, but the particular questions I'm asking are not very complex at
all:

What does the government do with the extra money they print?

I don't know what you mean by "extra" money. The government prints money to
replace worn-out or damaged money, which is retired. And they print money at
the request of banks, who make a deposit with the Fed equal to the amount of
currency they request. People get their hands on that currency by in turn
making a deposit of their own at a bank that got the currency from the Fed.
The peoples' "deposits" include those that result from taking out a loan
from the bank.

Paper money is not much of an issue. It's reserve ratios and loan policies
that are the big issue.

If you want explanations of all this and you don't want to go for a book,
look around the web. Here's a site that looks like it has good basic
explanations, although I haven't checked it enough to be su

http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/



Is there a particular mechanism (or example of a mechanism) through which
printing more money directly causes the value of each monetary unit to
drop?

It shouldn't take more than a few sentences to answer these questions for
the most part.

There is a common misconception that the government prints currency at its
whim and then tosses it out into the market somehow. That's not actually how
it works. Any currency on the market comes about as the result of a deposit
in some kind of bank. But the currency is just the grease. The questions
you're asking should really be about the gears and wheels: the process of
creating deposits, which are where most of the money is.

There are a couple of ways the government creates money, but, again, that
money is in the form of credit and resulting deposits, in one form or
another. The currency just comes about when someone needs currency for small
trades of various kinds.

Take a look at that website and check the basic entries about what money is,
etc. You'll get the general picture pretty quickly.

It's an interesting subject, IMO. I hope you enjoy getting into it.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , "Adam Corolla" wrote:

You didn't really answer my questions. Probably my fault for my rambling,
random style in my post--I apologize, I was very drowsy then.
I'll try to state my questions as clearly as possible.
[snip]
The questions I'm asking don't require pages and pages of complicated
answers,

Actually, they do.

just a few sentences will suffice.

Actually, they won't. The subject is much more complex than you appear to
realize.

Therefore, the answer "go read
a book" will be taken as an admission that you don't know the answers.

It is not my job, or anyone else's, for that matter, to remedy the
deficiencies in your education -- and your unwillingness to make the necessary
effort (i.e. "go read a book") will be taken as an admission that you would
prefer to remain argumentative and ignorant.

Also, I would like to know if you hold the belief that reducing taxes
results in stimulation of the US economy which ends up bringing more income
into the government by increased tax revenue.

If by "reducing taxes" you mean reducing tax *rates* -- yes, I do hold that
belief, and it's a mystery to me why anyone does not, as the historical record
shows quite clearly that that is exactly what happens.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Adam Corolla"
wrote:


snip

Also, I would like to know if you hold the belief that reducing taxes
results in stimulation of the US economy which ends up bringing more
income
into the government by increased tax revenue.

If by "reducing taxes" you mean reducing tax *rates* -- yes, I do hold
that
belief, and it's a mystery to me why anyone does not, as the historical
record
shows quite clearly that that is exactly what happens.

Pffhhht. d8-)

Wikipedia actually handles this subject very well. I've watched their entry
for "supply side economics" evolve there over the years, probably because
there are so many partisans on both sides of this issue that they've beaten
each other to a pulp until the phony claims have been squeezed out of it.
It's more respectful of opposing opinions than the median position of
professional economists, the majority of whom treat it more like an
ideology-driven hoax.

You may want to take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

--
Ed Huntress

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
news

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I sure wish they would stop printing so much money. It's
getting to be worthless.

Are you joking, or do you really believe that the amount of money that's
printed affects its value?


Nope, I wasn't joking. The fact is the more money that a government prints
the less value it has. It takes more money to buy commodities because there
are more and more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. A good example
of this was in post WWI Germany where the inflation was so high that it was
reported that it took a wheelbarrow worth of money to buy a loaf of bread.
The German government tried to get out of its economic problems by printing
more and more money but all that did was create hyperinflation. Inflation
takes the value out of a dollar or whatever currency you are talking about.
The more scarce a dollar is the more it's worth and vice versa. Money is
just paper with ink on it. Money has no intrinsic value by itself. Much
psychology is involved. People have to believe that money is valuable for it
to be valuable. Once people see money as not being valuable they want more
and more of it to purchase the same thing they did a week ago and on and on.
Government creates inflation by printing too much money. Inflation makes the
dollar able to buy less and less so you need more and more dollars. It's
simple economics really. Right now we'd have tremendous inflation but since
we're buying everything overseas prices are staying low. For now.

Hawke

You didn't really answer my questions. Probably my fault for my
rambling,
random style in my post--I apologize, I was very drowsy then.
I'll try to state my questions as clearly as possible.
[snip]
The questions I'm asking don't require pages and pages of complicated
answers,

Actually, they do.

just a few sentences will suffice.

Actually, they won't. The subject is much more complex than you appear to
realize.

Therefore, the answer "go read
a book" will be taken as an admission that you don't know the answers.

It is not my job, or anyone else's, for that matter, to remedy the
deficiencies in your education -- and your unwillingness to make the
necessary
effort (i.e. "go read a book") will be taken as an admission that you
would
prefer to remain argumentative and ignorant.

Also, I would like to know if you hold the belief that reducing taxes
results in stimulation of the US economy which ends up bringing more
income
into the government by increased tax revenue.

If by "reducing taxes" you mean reducing tax *rates* -- yes, I do hold
that
belief, and it's a mystery to me why anyone does not, as the historical
record
shows quite clearly that that is exactly what happens.

No, that's not true, so your concept of the "historical record" is clearly
wrong. All you have to do is look at Clinton's tax INCREASE followed by
years of tremendous economic growth to see that simply lowering taxes does
nothing for the economy. Then look at the years when the marginal tax rates
were far higher than they are now and the economic level was also much
higher. Why was the economy so strong with extremely high tax rates in the
Truman and Eisenhower administrations? Thinking all you have to do is lower
tax rates to make the economy grow is, first off, factually wrong and
secondly it's way too simplistic. You have bought the bull**** story from
the business community and the wealthy class who are the two groups who
benefit the most from lower taxes. Economic output is dependent on many
factors and marginal tax rates are rarely the one that makes a significant
difference. Many other factors are far more important to promoting economic
activity. However, at all times business and the wealthy want to pay less in
taxes and since they traditionally pay a large chunk of the taxes collected
overall they are the groups most interested in lower rates. Which explains
why they are continually putting out propaganda that lowering their taxes
will be good for all. Well, it's not. So why is it that people like you are
so susceptible to their bull****? What's good for the rich is rarely, if
ever, good for the rest of us folks, and that is a fact.

Hawke

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:54:44 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
news

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I sure wish they would stop printing so much money. It's
getting to be worthless.

Are you joking, or do you really believe that the amount of money that's
printed affects its value?


Nope, I wasn't joking. The fact is the more money that a government prints
the less value it has. It takes more money to buy commodities because there
are more and more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. A good example
of this was in post WWI Germany where the inflation was so high that it was
reported that it took a wheelbarrow worth of money to buy a loaf of bread.
The German government tried to get out of its economic problems by printing
more and more money but all that did was create hyperinflation. Inflation
takes the value out of a dollar or whatever currency you are talking about.
The more scarce a dollar is the more it's worth and vice versa. Money is
just paper with ink on it. Money has no intrinsic value by itself. Much
psychology is involved. People have to believe that money is valuable for it
to be valuable. Once people see money as not being valuable they want more
and more of it to purchase the same thing they did a week ago and on and on.
Government creates inflation by printing too much money. Inflation makes the
dollar able to buy less and less so you need more and more dollars. It's
simple economics really. Right now we'd have tremendous inflation but since
we're buying everything overseas prices are staying low. For now.

Hawke

You are being over simplistic. Governments print more money so
inflation results. Takes a wheelbarrow full to buy a loaf of bread.

It is a bit more complicated then that and I'm not here to educate but
the first thing you need to think about is how does the money get from
the Government Bank into all those wheelbarrows?

You can equally well blame labor unions for inflation as the union
goes on strike; gains higher wages for the employees; who now have
more money to spend. As a result of the costs of the higher paid
employees employers have to raise the price of goods made and as well
need to borrow more from the Bank to finance operations. As more goods
are being made the demand, and therefore the cost, of raw materials
goes up.

In short inflation and or depressions are caused by a multitude of
actions and reactions and are far too complex to explain by a
simplistic statement that the Government prints too much money.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)

In article , "Hawke" wrote:

No, that's not true, so your concept of the "historical record" is clearly
wrong. All you have to do is look at Clinton's tax INCREASE followed by
years of tremendous economic growth to see that simply lowering taxes does
nothing for the economy.

Complete non-sequitur. Examining the aftermath of a tax increase provides no
informat at all about the effects of a tax cut.

Then look at the years when the marginal tax rates
were far higher than they are now and the economic level was also much
higher. Why was the economy so strong with extremely high tax rates in the
Truman and Eisenhower administrations?

And why was it stronger still, after Kennedy's tax cuts? And weaker after
Johnson's and Nixon's tax increases?

Thinking all you have to do is lower
tax rates to make the economy grow is, first off, factually wrong and
secondly it's way too simplistic.

Speaking of simplistic...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

You may want to take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Interesting article -- yet it fails to provide the most crucial (to this
discussion) datum: a graph of tax revenues vs. tax rates.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

You may want to take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Interesting article -- yet it fails to provide the most crucial (to this
discussion) datum: a graph of tax revenues vs. tax rates.

True, it's all about the economic ideas rather than the evidence.

In that regard, tax revenues have consistently fallen behind the losses due
to tax cuts during the times that supply-side economics has been in
ascendance. If you look at it in terms of the Laffer curve, it implies that
all of the activity has been on the left side of the curve, which is the
side where the revenues from tax cuts are slight, and the losses from tax
cuts are large. This agrees with the fact that we're running a substantial
deficit.

Supply-siders are avoiding acknowledging the left-side arguments because
they're accurate descriptions of what has actually happened; all you have to
do is measure revenues and tax rates, and plunk the results down on the
curve. They're also damned inconvenient to the supply-siders' theories,
because they suggest that, in terms of tax revenues, our taxes are already
too low. Compared to the rest of the world that does appear to be the case.

However, that's another argument. And the Laffer Curve is about tax
revenues, not directly about the health of the economy. So I don't want to
even try to argue this one. It's much too complicated.

The Wikipedia links do a good job of fleshing it out, for anyone with that
much interest in the ideas and, more importantly, the evidence.

--
Ed Huntress

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:54:44 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
news

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I sure wish they would stop printing so much money. It's
getting to be worthless.

Are you joking, or do you really believe that the amount of money
that's
printed affects its value?


Nope, I wasn't joking. The fact is the more money that a government
prints
the less value it has. It takes more money to buy commodities because
there
are more and more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. A good
example
of this was in post WWI Germany where the inflation was so high that it
was
reported that it took a wheelbarrow worth of money to buy a loaf of
bread.
The German government tried to get out of its economic problems by
printing
more and more money but all that did was create hyperinflation. Inflation
takes the value out of a dollar or whatever currency you are talking
about.
The more scarce a dollar is the more it's worth and vice versa. Money is
just paper with ink on it. Money has no intrinsic value by itself. Much
psychology is involved. People have to believe that money is valuable for
it
to be valuable. Once people see money as not being valuable they want
more
and more of it to purchase the same thing they did a week ago and on and
on.
Government creates inflation by printing too much money. Inflation makes
the
dollar able to buy less and less so you need more and more dollars. It's
simple economics really. Right now we'd have tremendous inflation but
since
we're buying everything overseas prices are staying low. For now.

Hawke

You are being over simplistic. Governments print more money so
inflation results. Takes a wheelbarrow full to buy a loaf of bread.

It is a bit more complicated then that and I'm not here to educate but
the first thing you need to think about is how does the money get from
the Government Bank into all those wheelbarrows?

You can equally well blame labor unions for inflation as the union
goes on strike; gains higher wages for the employees; who now have
more money to spend. As a result of the costs of the higher paid
employees employers have to raise the price of goods made and as well
need to borrow more from the Bank to finance operations. As more goods
are being made the demand, and therefore the cost, of raw materials
goes up.

In short inflation and or depressions are caused by a multitude of
actions and reactions and are far too complex to explain by a
simplistic statement that the Government prints too much money.

Not according to Milton Freedman. But also understand that I was truncating
the process so it could be briefly stated and the gist of it understood by
someone who isn't well versed in the subject.

Hawke

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Hawke"
wrote:

No, that's not true, so your concept of the "historical record" is
clearly
wrong. All you have to do is look at Clinton's tax INCREASE followed by
years of tremendous economic growth to see that simply lowering taxes
does
nothing for the economy.

Complete non-sequitur. Examining the aftermath of a tax increase provides
no
informat at all about the effects of a tax cut.

Then look at the years when the marginal tax rates
were far higher than they are now and the economic level was also much
higher. Why was the economy so strong with extremely high tax rates in
the
Truman and Eisenhower administrations?

And why was it stronger still, after Kennedy's tax cuts? And weaker after
Johnson's and Nixon's tax increases?

Thinking all you have to do is lower
tax rates to make the economy grow is, first off, factually wrong and
secondly it's way too simplistic.

Speaking of simplistic...


That's right, simplistic. For one thing there were many different pressures
on the economy during Johnson and Nixon's terms. But the mantra of tax cuts
to increase growth and government revenue is very popular with the right
wing but not so with everyone else. Many economists look more to money
supply than to tax cuts for economic stimulation. And as for the boost to
the economy when Kennedy cut taxes you have to understand that he cut the
tax rate from the 90% range down to 74%. Showing that it's not simply
cutting the rate that matters. Reagan cut the rate to 28%. If you look at
the numbers you won't find a big improvement in the Reagan economy compared
to Kennedy's even though Kennedy's highest tax rate was in the 70s. I'd love
to see us go back to the Kennedy tax rate for the upper income bracket. The
economy was good then but some misguided folks seem to thing the rate has to
be as low as Reagan's to have a strong economy. Not true. A high progressive
tax rate with the top paying high percentages is not bad for an economy and
statistics show that. As I said, the wealthy and business always want their
taxes lowered. They would have you believe the lower their taxes the greater
the economy will be. That's not so either but people like you fall for that
line continuously. Try looking at the numbers over the long haul and you
will see what they say is truly crap.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

You may want to take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Interesting article -- yet it fails to provide the most crucial (to this
discussion) datum: a graph of tax revenues vs. tax rates.

True, it's all about the economic ideas rather than the evidence.

In that regard, tax revenues have consistently fallen behind the losses
due
to tax cuts during the times that supply-side economics has been in
ascendance. If you look at it in terms of the Laffer curve, it implies
that
all of the activity has been on the left side of the curve, which is the
side where the revenues from tax cuts are slight, and the losses from tax
cuts are large. This agrees with the fact that we're running a substantial
deficit.

Supply-siders are avoiding acknowledging the left-side arguments because
they're accurate descriptions of what has actually happened; all you have
to
do is measure revenues and tax rates, and plunk the results down on the
curve. They're also damned inconvenient to the supply-siders' theories,
because they suggest that, in terms of tax revenues, our taxes are already
too low. Compared to the rest of the world that does appear to be the
case.

However, that's another argument. And the Laffer Curve is about tax
revenues, not directly about the health of the economy. So I don't want to
even try to argue this one. It's much too complicated.

The Wikipedia links do a good job of fleshing it out, for anyone with that
much interest in the ideas and, more importantly, the evidence.

--
Ed Huntress


I actually get a chuckle out of the supply side "experts". They want to sell
the public a bunch of bull**** and dress it up in fancy economic terms to
make it sound like it makes sense. Think about it. What they are saying
basically is this. Lower the rate of taxes the government charges the
population and you will wind up taking in more money. On it's face it's
ridiculous. Ask the public to pay in less money to the system and the
government will have more money. Give me a break. It's a total con job. If
the government wants money from the public it collects taxes. If it needs a
little money it collects a little in taxes. If it needs a lot of money it
collects a lot in taxes. It does this by raising or lowering the rate. It's
so simple that the act of raising taxes is what the government does to get
more money that no one has ever questioned it. Now the supply siders come
along and say lower the rate and more will come in. As Ed pointed out the
record is in. When the government did what the supply siders wanted two
things happened. One, less money came in and two, the deficit ballooned.
Take away inflation, and raises in FICA taxes under Reagan and the revenue
was actually less. So in the end it turns out that supply side is what many
thought it was right from the start, a con job perpetuated by the right wing
to benefit it's core constituent groups wealth and business. I'm shocked!

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

snip


Money is probably the most desired thing there is, because it can be
exchanged for just about anything. So, the varying factor in its value
will be how easy it is to get.

If all the tree leaves and blades of grass became various denominations
of money, then money would be worthless. Not because there's more OF
it, but because it's easy to get. If the government printed five
hundred trillion dollars tomorrow and sealed it all away so no one
could get to it, the value of money wouldn't change even there's a hell
of a lot more of it because it's no easier to obtain. Do you agree?

Now, do you see where I'm going with this? When the government prints
additional money, how does that extra money make it easier to obtain a
given amount of it? Let's say the government opened the vault with the
500 trillion in it and did with it whatever they do with all the extra
money they print (which is what? I don't know.) How does that extra
money make money easier to obtain? Do all companies suddenly give
raises when they find out there's more money in the economy, so that
money becomes easier to obtain? I think the key here is in finding out
what the government does with the extra money. I'll be grateful to
anyone who can explain that to me.

Printed dollars are only a small portion of the "money" that's available
in the economy. Most of it is in the form of demand deposits -- ciphers
on a page, or, today, bits in a computer. The cash is just based on a
calculation of how much of that "money" is needed to keep the wheels of
commerce greased.

That makes a lot more sense to me than the simplistic belief that
inflation is caused by the government printing too much money.

To the extent that monetary policy causes or limits inflation (it's a big
factor), the policy that has most to do with it is the setting of
overnight lending rates -- the rate controlled by the Fed, and the one
that gets so much attention when the Fed makes a fractional change in the
rate. Through an indirect chain of events this influences loans and thus
the amount of money in circulation. There are other factors, such as
changes in the reserve ratios that banks are required to hold, and then a
whole variety of other things that get involved. And then there is fiscal
policy.

The simple way to describe it is that changes in the money supply is the
result of how many loans are granted by banks. I would not recommend
trying to understand this by means of messages in a NG. You'll need a good
book, especially to see the theory and the practice of controlling
inflation.



The story of money is a confusing and tricky one.

I agree, but the particular questions I'm asking are not very complex at
all:

What does the government do with the extra money they print?

I don't know what you mean by "extra" money. The government prints money
to replace worn-out or damaged money, which is retired. And they print
money at the request of banks, who make a deposit with the Fed equal to
the amount of currency they request. People get their hands on that
currency by in turn making a deposit of their own at a bank that got the
currency from the Fed. The peoples' "deposits" include those that result
from taking out a loan from the bank.

Paper money is not much of an issue. It's reserve ratios and loan policies
that are the big issue.

If you want explanations of all this and you don't want to go for a book,
look around the web. Here's a site that looks like it has good basic
explanations, although I haven't checked it enough to be su

http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/



Is there a particular mechanism (or example of a mechanism) through which
printing more money directly causes the value of each monetary unit to
drop?

It shouldn't take more than a few sentences to answer these questions for
the most part.

There is a common misconception that the government prints currency at its
whim and then tosses it out into the market somehow. That's not actually
how it works. Any currency on the market comes about as the result of a
deposit in some kind of bank. But the currency is just the grease. The
questions you're asking should really be about the gears and wheels: the
process of creating deposits, which are where most of the money is.

There are a couple of ways the government creates money, but, again, that
money is in the form of credit and resulting deposits, in one form or
another. The currency just comes about when someone needs currency for
small trades of various kinds.

Take a look at that website and check the basic entries about what money
is, etc. You'll get the general picture pretty quickly.

It's an interesting subject, IMO. I hope you enjoy getting into it.

--
Ed Huntress

Will do--thanks a million!