"Ed P" <esp@snet.n> wrote in message news:ve36cd$264jd$1@dont-email.me...
> On 10/8/2024 12:54 AM, T wrote:
>> On 10/7/24 19:05, Ed P wrote:
>>> On 10/7/2024 9:16 PM, T wrote:
>>>> On 10/7/24 17:59, Ed P wrote:
>>>>> On 10/7/2024 8:37 PM, T wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/7/24 06:23, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ed P" <esp@snet.n> wrote in message news:vduh73$1acep$1@dont-
>>>>>>> email.me...
>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2024 12:44 PM, Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2024 5:49 AM, Planned Trannyhood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This abortion ad is so stupid
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zke68m8Acw0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yup, aimed at the feeble minded voters that think abortion rights
>>>>>>>>> are more important than open borders, rampant inflation and
>>>>>>>>> potential for world wars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you say that if you were pregnant and had issues? A bunch of
>>>>>>>> old men, like you, are making the rules. Fair?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, if you have medical issues those are covered. If you have
>>>>>>> other issues.. we all have those.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, if you feel a woman should have the power to deny support
>>>>>>> and care of her child.. then men should be free to do exactly the
>>>>>>> same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh? You're pregnant? I will pay $150 tax and the child is no longer
>>>>>>> my responsibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we can force men to accept responsibility for their offspring, I
>>>>>>> don't think it's too much to ask that women have to do the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... or they could just use birth control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1++++. But, But, But, what about f***ing on the
>>>>>> front lawn like a dog?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What, they are saying that if they wanted a boy instead of a
>>>>>> girl, it is a medical issue and it is okay to rip the
>>>>>> arms , legs, and heads off a girl?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geez. Violence upon another human being is not
>>>>>> a medical issue. The Libs never talk about the real
>>>>>> victims of this violence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your experience with pregnancy and antiphospholipid syndrome?
>>>>> The problem is not shown in the first six weeks that some states use
>>>>> as maximum. FYI, my wife had extensive experience with it and some of
>>>>> you anti-abortion people would have killer her. You OK with that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, some people should be using birth control etc, but the
>>>>> restrictions can still cause serious medical issues.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NO ONE is denying a woman the right to self defense.
>>>>
>>>> You are using that sick argument to justify your
>>>> ghoulish behavior. Wrong sex or I want a motorcycle
>>>> instead RIP THE LITTLE FUCKER OUT!
>>>
>>> Sick argument? Truth. No, it is happening. People are being turned
>>> away at critical times. There has to be a sensible middle ground but
>>> some states deny it.
>>
>> Absolute bull shit. If their life was in danger, they'd be
>> taken care of.
>>
>>> Sorry if my facts got in the way of your uncompromising and uneducated
>>> attitude.
>>
>> Facts? If you mouth is open ...
>
> Wow, you get to choose who is killed. I bet you are proud.
>
> https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-emergency-abortion-texas-bf79fafceba4ab9df9df2489e5d43e72
>
> The decision is another setback for opponents of Texas’ abortion ban,
> which for two years has withstood multiple legal challenges, including
> from women who had serious pregnancy complications and have been turned
> away by doctors.

Gee.. that's why you have other doctors.

Then of course, the question is where they actually "serious pregnancy
complications" or she just changed her mind?

Hard to know without some facts here. I will just note that an exemption
exists in Texas law for such cases, and it's not up to the mother to decide
if her complications warrant it, but that of a doctor.

Now, do you have any cases of women who later died because they were "turned
away"?

"Tampon Timmy" <tampon.timmy@bonus-hole.boy> wrote in message
news:17fc403e6209a2fe$5425$2773783$50d51a61@news.newsdemon.com...
> micky wrote:
>> Inflation is far far from rampant. it's less than a percent over target
>> levels. Try to keep up.
>
>
> When the Dems stole the 2020, Trump gas was $2.05/gal.
> Today, 4 years later, gas is $3.20 gal.
>
> Is that your target inflation?
> Try to keep up.

Target inflation = the hidden taxation of everyone by devaluation of money.

Then people complain that prices go up.

Malte Runz wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2024 14:29:27 -0700, El Kabong <twang@the.noodle> wrote:
> >Malte Runz wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 12:44:03 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
> >> >On 10/6/2024 5:49 AM, Planned Trannyhood wrote:
> ><...>
> >> > ... rampant inflation ...
> >>
> >> https://tinyurl.com/5kbtyph8
> >>
> >> "Current US Inflation Rates: 2000-2024
> >> The annual inflation rate for the United States was 2.5% for the 12
> >> months ending August, compared to the previous rate increase of 2.9%,
> >> according to U.S. Labor Department data published on September 11,
> >> 2024. The next inflation update is scheduled for release on October 10
> >> at 8:30 a.m."
> >
> >That's the year-over-year inflation rate. If you look at
> >month by month inflation, it's much better than that.
> >PCE inflation data for August, released Sept 27, was
> >0.1%. That's roughly 1.2% annualized rate. Yes,
> >inflation is actually running under the 2% target.
> >
> >> I can hardly wait. By the way, the annual inflation rate in 2019 was
> >> 2.3%. 0.7% in 2015!
> >>
> >> IOW, the inflation rate more than trippled under Trump.
> >
> >Inflation shot up in early 2021 due to covid-caused
> >supply issues and the Trump borrow-and-spend binge. The
> >Fed believed that was transitory, and didn't think
> >interest rates needed to be raised, and conventional
> >wisdom was with them. They were bigly wrong. Can't
> >fault them for not having a crystal ball, but Trump had
> >more to do with the early-'20s inflation than Biden.
> >
> >Democrats: tax-and-spend
> >Republicans: borrow-and-spend
> >
> >It's obvious which of those policies leads to more
> >inflation.
>
> I think it makes sense to distinguish between 'monetary inflation' and
> 'price inflation' in the current situation (not only in the US). If
> the inflation rate is more or less down to the same rate as it were
> pre-covid, but prices are (a lot) higher on specific consumer goods,
> then we're talking about 'price inflation'.

If i understand it right, the PCE index doesn't
distinguish between the two. The US Fed's role is to
adjust the money supply, indirectly thru the interest
rates it charges banks, in order to strike a balance
between inflation (with some extra money supply to allow
for economic growth), and full employment. Similar for
central banks in most countries. In the US, 2% inflation
is seen as the sweet spot.

The inflation rate may fall to pre-covid levels, but that
doesn't mean prices should go down. Inflation is the
*rate* of increase in prices (1st derivative of prices),
not the price itself. Prices are not expected to ever go
down. Falling prices (as opposed to falling inflation
rate) would be deflation, which is a bad thing because it
means the economy is contracting.

> I'm in the process of 'doing my own research on economics 1.01', and
> found this article informative.
> https://mises.org/understanding-money-mechanics/monetary-inflation-and-price-inflation

The article is interesting... simple, but hard for me :)