immunity and organ damage

Xadoman wrote: What about bitcoin? I have a feeling that the thing is like a snowball that grows bigger and bigger and eventually it requires unreal amount of computing power and memory disks to simply maintain itself and therefore its collapse is inevitable.

keepit wrote: ITN, ... Rank the following in most practical and doable and explain your answer :
1 - printing dollars to pay off treasury debt (bonds, notes, bills).
2 - printing new treasury debt (bonds, notes, bills) to raise money to pay off old treasuries (bonds, notes, bills).
3 - defaulting on old treasuries
4 - raising taxes enough to pay off the national debt (that's a funny one).
5 - reducing govt spending enough to pay off old treasuries (that's funny too).

#'s 4 and 5 are just ridiculous and meant for humor.

keepit wrote:Economists refer to them as treasuries.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:Economists refer to them as treasuries.

Economists refer to bonds as "bonds." They can have descriptors such as "government bonds," "Treasury bonds," "corporate bonds," etc...

Economists know what bonds are. However, I will acknowledge that there are a relative few pretenders out there that talk a bigger game than they play and who don't understand how they are misusing their words.

I just wanted to remember your reason. Now I know. You think you become an economist by using the slang of those you mistakenly believe are economists rather than learning what the words mean and trying to use them correctly.

OK. I got it. Press on.

btw, did you ever get that addition thing straightened out? You know, adding one dollar actually increases the number of dollars by one, regardless of how it is spent? ... or do you still need help sorting that out?

.

keepit wrote:
ITN,
OK. How about this issue.
Rank the following in most practical and doable and explain your answer :
1 - printing dollars to pay off treasury debt (bonds, notes, bills).
2 - printing new treasury debt (bonds, notes, bills) to raise money to pay off old treasuries (bonds, notes, bills).
3 - defaulting on old treasuries
4 - raising taxes enough to pay off the national debt (that's a funny one).
5 - reducing govt spending enough to pay off old treasuries (that's funny too).

#'s 4 and 5 are just ridiculous and meant for humor.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: ITN, ... Rank the following in most practical and doable and explain your answer :
1 - printing dollars to pay off treasury debt (bonds, notes, bills).
2 - printing new treasury debt (bonds, notes, bills) to raise money to pay off old treasuries (bonds, notes, bills).
3 - defaulting on old treasuries
4 - raising taxes enough to pay off the national debt (that's a funny one).
5 - reducing govt spending enough to pay off old treasuries (that's funny too).

#'s 4 and 5 are just ridiculous and meant for humor.

@ Into the Night, I do believe you are being given an exam ... and keepit will be grading your test.

@ keepit, refresh my memory, why do you refer to government bonds as "treasuries"?

.

keepit wrote:
Economists refer to them as treasuries. I just picked up the phrase from them. Surprised you missed that. Where did you go to school?

HarveyH55 wrote:
One of our local news stations has been investigating Covid-19 numbers, and a few other claims lately. Plan on visiting their website, to see if they have print articles, or videos of those. Oe was a coroner, who explained that blood clots or a common concern for anybody in the ICU for weeks at a time. Comes from poor circulation, from not being able to move around. Doesn't matter if it's a virus, or a car accident, or anything else. Mostly though, they were asking about how they determine what qualifies as a Covid-19 death. Apparently, there were a few car accident victims, listed as dying from Covid-19. The families were having trouble with insurance or something. There was another story, about test results. Several labs were only reporting 'positive' results, and a near 100% rate, which couldn't be right. They didn't even have a number, for how many tests they ran, to get their 'positive' numbers, so we could do a little simple math. Some of the excuses the labs gave, were sort of amusing, if they weren't implying that we are stupid enough to entertain...

keepit wrote: I don't think it's a hoax.

keepit wrote: 700,000 american doctors can't wrong (or liars).

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: I don't think it's a hoax.

It's a hoax ... which is probably why you don't think it's a hoax.

Printing dollars increases the number of dollars ... which is probably why you don't think it increases the number of dollars.

keepit wrote: 700,000 american doctors can't wrong (or liars).

The liars who pretend to speak for 700,000 American doctors and who intentionally misrepresent their positions are certainly wrong.

.

keepit wrote:
gfm,
Your numbers are way off. That is what is fooling you.

keepit wrote:
I don't think it's a hoax. Obviously there are a few anomalies but so what. 700,000 american doctors can't be wrong (or liars). There might be a few liars on the internet though.

keepit wrote:
gfm,
Your numbers are way off. That is what is fooling you.

keepit wrote:
You say, "it doesn't matter what numbers i choose."
Credibility man, credibility!

keepit wrote:
You say, "it doesn't matter what numbers i choose."
Credibility man, credibility!

keepit wrote:
You're more trouble than you're worth ITN. You never learn.

keepit wrote:
You're more trouble than you're worth ITN. You never learn.

keepit wrote:
gfm,
If one of the numbers (numerator or denominator) are wrong, the % will vary and you will come to erroneous conclusions.

keepit wrote:
gfm,
You ask for my background in math. I took 49 credit hours of math in college. and had a b+ average.

keepit wrote:
Later i took a correspondence course in public and private accounting and earned a correspondence diploma.

keepit wrote:
Your patronizing questions about basic arithmetic are kind of annoying.

keepit wrote:
You're the one that has a relatively lower level of arithmetic and math background.

keepit wrote:
gfm,
If one of the numbers (numerator or denominator) are wrong, the % will vary and you will come to erroneous conclusions.

keepit wrote:
gfm,
You ask for my background in math. I took 49 credit hours of math in college. and had a b+ average. Later i took a correspondence course in public and private accounting and earned a correspondence diploma. Your patronizing questions about basic arithmetic are kind of annoying. You're the one that has a relatively lower level of arithmetic and math background.

keepit wrote:
In the immortal words of Cramer of CNBC, "YOU KNOW NOTHING!".

keepit wrote:However , i believe you resume.
Your judgement about my arithmetic and math background is flawed and you resume isn't helping you come to the correct conclusion.

keepit wrote:
Your patronizing attitude is ineffective.

keepit wrote:
More of your patronizing attitude huh. I don't need your advice. Your credibility is zilch. I'm not illiterate in math or economics. Show specific evidence for that claim.

keepit wrote:
Your patronizing attitude is ineffective.

keepit wrote:
More of your patronizing attitude huh. I don't need your advice. Your credibility is zilch. I'm not illiterate in math or economics. Show specific evidence for that claim.