Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (23799)	8/17/2006 10:02:16 AM
From: shres	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

My goodness, six years later and some poor clowns still just don't get it. I read on another obscure board yesterday where a greedy poster wonders if there's any way "we" can start a class action lawsuit against Brinker and get "our" money back. We've all heard this one before...sue somebody, blame somebody, lets get our money back from somebody. It's not my fault, it's not fair. Pitiful whiners, the bunch. Another poster who claims his whole retirement was ruined by that evil Brinker has the answer.... "...Several years ago I discussed this with some Attorneys I know and they all said the same thing. No way to sue and win. WE made the trades, not Brinker. WE held the QQQs while they went down. Ultimately we are responsible for our actions as much as it hurts." Good advice. Move on and fuggattaboutit. BTW, when it comes right down to it, the poor retired person appeared to be just a bit greedy and if indeed his retirement was ruined, it was his own greedy fault. Sad...but simple.

To: Kirk © who wrote (23799)	8/17/2006 1:57:43 PM
From: J-L-S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

“Higher prices for anything reduces purchasing power which is the definition of inflation.” Your definition of “inflation” is not correct. First, higher prices are one of the results of inflation; they are not the cause of inflation. Second, if you have to choose between buying X and Y, and you have to buy X as its price goes up, then you will have to cut back on your purchases of Y providing your money supply has remained constant (that is, no inflation). That is not inflation. Your purchasing power is the same; you just have to make different choices as to what you purchase with it -- X or Y; gasoline or beer. According to Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary published in 1983, the second definition of "inflation" is: An increase in the amount of currency in circulation, resulting in a relatively sharp and sudden fall in its value and rise in prices. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright 2000, the second definition is: A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services. Both of these definitions require an increase in currency, or a devaluing of the dollar. This is what is meant by “reduced purchasing power”. Having to choose between X and Y, or gasoline and beer, is no different than choosing between paying your taxes or buying beer. When you have to buy one thing, and its price goes up, then you are not able to buy as much of the other things. This is why many people say that higher energy prices act like a tax. Do higher taxes cause inflation? No -- higher taxes, like higher energy prices, only serve to direct your choices. If you want to plot something against CPI or PPI, plot the real money supply. And yes, as the dollar becomes worth less, and after many years of accumulated inflation (though it may be small on an annual basis), the oil Gods (OPEC) will finally say "Hey, we need to raise our prices too ..."