On Tue Jun 10 17:38:09 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 3:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 8 19:16:52 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 6/8/2025 6:23 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat May 31 21:32:22 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2025 3:50 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Would you kike to place a bet on whether the New Yorker will be in business in 5 years?
I would!
OK, $1,000, that the New Yorker is gone in 5 years.
8 June, 2030. You're on.
Have you ever read even one New Yorker in its entirety?
Like it or not (I don't) it's an unique thing. The people
who do like it like it very much. And are rabidly loyal.
Andrew, I worked in a rather high class industry with very high class people. The sort of people who had lots and lots of awards for their work. And they entrusted me with their actual jobs. Nobel Prizes when that still meant something were common.
That means that their office waiting rooms all had The New Yorker Magazine before they made the mistake of taking the snobbish appeal of the New York City upper crust. So yes, I have read many New Yorker magazines from cover to cover. I cannot say
that I much cared for their nose-in-the-air and the "Letters to the Editor" tended to be even worse than the editorial content, but I read them none-the-less.
You cannot survive taking a magazine into the spectacularly left wing position of cover art of Trump as Mussolini without paying the price.
It is my belief that almost ALL of the supposed common man comments that are so negative are entirely fomented by George Soros and Trump has rendered him impotent.
Hence our wager.
In 2030, US$1000 may buy a cup of coffee.
Or more likely without Janet Yellen at the helm it may more likelt asgain to be worth $1,000. Remember that it was her wildass theories that caused inflation to skyrocket. And when I said that I argued with her about this on the internet chat group it
hurt Flunky's feelings to think that either she was too inportant a person to discuss her theories with or that I had to be lying that I argued with his Godess of Finance.
And shortly after that when inflation threatened to destroy the absolute value of the dollar she publically admitted that her theories were wrong. Essentially saying that what I had been saying was the correct theory of finance.
We NEED to print money at a high enough rate to allow growth in the GDP but we must not over judge that amount. Holding that number to the exact growth of GDP can allow the dollar to deflate. Done correctly the dollar can return to the point where a
dollar is actually worth what it was in 1940. It is not as if the theory isn't known but that allowing some hairbrain to play with it is what is destructive.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)