Hyperinflation

[KyleTheJustin]

And I by no means only look at the United States' faults. There are plenty of cases, as FSU stated, where the US has proven its worth to the world ten times over. However, under no circumstances will anyone ever convince me that militaristic might compromises a nations position in the world. That statement is not only ignorant, but very disturbing when dealing with a global context. As I appreciate the good that the United States has done for the world, there is and will forever be much to be ashamed of, especially when dealing with comments that "hyperinflate" our egos.

I don't find the importance in labelling a nation as a super power. Each nation contributes in one way or another, so no form of domination through militaristic means should guide the term in a particular direction. What's more is that people often defend our economy and pride it for being so powerful, yet fail to realize how much exploitation occurs and how much the top one percent of the population takes advantage of the rest of the people. Capitalism may have placed our country at the top economically, but it also placed many other countries at or near the bottom, which is something I wouldn't boast about; rather, I'd take that into consideration, promote awareness, and see if there are positive steps to be taken in a proactive direction to help get those other countries back on the map.

[Dr. B]

I'm gonna let the other piranhas attack this one, but I have one thing to point out. Superpower is not a subjective term. Regardless of you sentiments regarding "bullying" Kyle, you can't deny that the U.S. has a capability to influence world affairs like no other (hegemony). Americans are the upper crust of economic, social, and political (militaristic) capability, and whether you believe we have the right to assert our dominance does not change the fact that we are capable of doing so.

stop saying case and point.

[judgeposer]

How 'bout that hyperinflation?!

[quote name='KyleTheJustin' date='16 December 2009 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1261010674' post='439707']
Yeah, let's base our countries success off of militaristic might--that's brilliant. Furthermore, the reason our nation can classify itself as a super power ultimately stems from the capitalist system which exploits various nations for their goods and services at a price that disables them from doing any better. So yes, if you want to consider yourself a super power next to nations that virtually create everything we use, go right ahead. I, on the other hand, consider that global bullying, and refuse to take part in considering a nation that prides itself off of the exploitation of third world nations anywhere close to a super power. This also applies to your military, which you so highly like to place right atop your list of morally sound reasons why the US is a "super power." Once again, history included, the term super power died after WWII. Case and point.
[/quote]

I think this is potato vs. potato (pronounced: patato), really, because, well, if you'd rather not consider the United States a global superpower, then, fine. Many among us refuse to admit a host of obvious things. I think a definition of what constitutes super-power status would not be limited to, but would have to include, having the ability to project military power and produce influence in doing so. Pegging a county's status as a superpower nation only on their military's might would, it seems to be, be myopic, because it fails to account for the capacity of some countries to project dominance (not only militarily, but also) economically, intellectually, ideologically, politically, and even artistically, etc. While it is hard to pin down and define a word like superpower, pertinent disciplines and notable intellectuals have used this word with some stability and consistency. While each may define it with some nuance, Samuel P. Huntington's (the guy who predicted the "clash of civilizations") definition, which I hinted to, says this much: a superpower is a state, like the United States, "with preeminence in every domain of power -- economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural -- with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world." (see [url="http://homepages.stmartin.edu/Fac_Staff/rlangill/PLS%20300/The%20Lonely%20Superpower.htm"]The Lonley Superpower[/url])

Defining words and phrases is hardly a moral exercise. You might not consider the United States a superpower because they fall short of some lofty idea you have about what a superpower should be. However noble of you, you can just as easily call the US as a "bad" superpower - this would be easier and more reflective, I think, of what you mean instead of trying to argue for a definition of superpower that no one uses/accepts, and then concluding that the United States does not possess those characteristics and is therefore not a superpower.

[quote name='KyleTheJustin' date='16 December 2009 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1261011115' post='439710']
And I by no means only look at the United States' faults. There are plenty of cases, as FSU stated, where the US has proven its worth to the world ten times over. However, under no circumstances will anyone ever convince me that militaristic might compromises a nations position in the world. That statement is not only ignorant, but very disturbing when dealing with a global context. As I appreciate the good that the United States has done for the world, there is and will forever be much to be ashamed of, especially when dealing with comments that "hyperinflate" our egos.

I don't find the importance in labelling a nation as a super power. Each nation contributes in one way or another, so no form of domination through militaristic means should guide the term in a particular direction. What's more is that people often defend our economy and pride it for being so powerful, yet fail to realize how much exploitation occurs and how much the top one percent of the population takes advantage of the rest of the people. Capitalism may have placed our country at the top economically, but it also placed many other countries at or near the bottom, which is something I wouldn't boast about; rather, I'd take that into consideration, promote awareness, and see if there are positive steps to be taken in a proactive direction to help get those other countries back on the map.
[/quote]

I do agree, and so does the mainstream literature on the matter, that military might is but [i]one[/i] consideration when assessing whether a state ranks as a superpower. Of course a state's military might is not to be the [i]sole[/i] consideration. Not a factor in the mainstream assessment, however, is whether the state has in its history or current behavior "shameful" events. Arguing so conflates the normative (the "should") with the descriptive (the "is). And while you do not seem to find the importance in labeling a state a superpower, you seem oddly interested in labeling a state [i]not[/i] a superpower. I do not think the debate on whether a state is a superpower is about whether a state merely contributes in one way or another to the global community, rather it is about the level or amount of influence a state can exert - and its exertions do not have to be "contributions" at all, which connote positivity. So, that the United States in your assessment, has produced injustice and exploitation matters not in assessing whether it is, in fact, a global superpower. All that seems to matter, at least if we use the word "superpower" as it is commonly used, is that the state have the ability to exert dominating influence in/on the global community.

[quote name='Dr. B' date='16 December 2009 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1261020592' post='439738']
I'm gonna let the other piranhas attack this one, but I have one thing to point out. Superpower is not a subjective term. Regardless of you sentiments regarding "bullying" Kyle, you can't deny that the U.S. has a capability to influence world affairs like no other (hegemony). Americans are the upper crust of economic, social, and political (militaristic) capability, and whether you believe we have the right to assert our dominance does not change the fact that we are capable of doing so.

stop saying case and point.
[/quote]

The idiom is "case [i]in[/i] point." I think the only sound conclusion is that the United States is, in fact, a global superpower. Whether it is a good, bad, or otherwise, player in the global community is debatable, perhaps. Surely, however, we can all agree that the United States has the capability, and has indeed, influenced the global community in a legion of ways, including militarily, economically, politically, and the other ways Huntington argues in his piece.

[KyleTheJustin]

I thought it was case in point! I've had numerous people point out that it is case and point, which proved my initial logic wrong multiple times, so I just adopted that misinformed saying. And Dr. B, I think it's part of the problem, far form the solution, to consider Americans the "upper crust" of anything. Surely most of the success the United States uses to pound its chest stems from a variety of issues that somehow or another leads to the exploitation of a lesser country. I'm not big into the whole idea of placing one nation highly superior to any other; it's just blind stupidity in my eyes. You can say that our economy flourishes and puts others to shame, but the reason it does so revolves around years of exploitation and down right slavery. I find that judge's argument holds the most validity, since it encompasses both the positive and negative aspects of the term "superpower." Thus, I may be wrong in my assertion, but I try to not label the country which I currently reside in "better" than other countries that offer more social services, stand in a peaceful light throughout the world, and contribute to a global society more so than the United States does. There are multiple instances where I can officially take pride in what the United States has done in the past, but there are also various reasons why I shake my head in disgust and wonder why people adore the term "superpower" so much when it entails such horrible and greedy actions. And to further supply your argument with the idea of hegemony is just disgusting, so I won't even touch on that topic. Asserting our dominance? Are you listening to yourself right now? I don't mean to poke names at people, but with comments like that you immediately label yourself an imperialist. Furthermore, and lastly, the United States has such a powerful grip over the rest of the world because it, as stated before, exploits their countries for various products, which immediately causes that country to play ball or end up broke and in debt to the United States, and because if they don't comply with mainstream Western culture, much like we saw in both Afghanistan and Iraq, they are considered a global threat that needs to be dealt with and controlled. So, yes, if you consider that something to be proud of and separate that much from bullying, by all means do so. However, for the rest of us who see the importance in other cultures and appreciate differences, whether they be political, military, religious, or even ethnic differences, we find the term "superpower" to be a bit overwhelming and very, very intimidating (see reasons above with culture, economy, etc.)

I think it's safe to say that we all have our differing views on the United States "superpower" title, including those that agree it exists and those that deny its prestige and pompous undertones.

I mean no harm, Dr. B:) I love hearing your viewpoints. Without this type of dialogue and back and forth discussion, my life would be filled with nothing but, well, hookah smoking haha.

[LZ22]

I would like everyone to do some research in Austrian School of Economics. This school of thought is widely critiqued and a minority thought process. It sort of points out that a market economy and human interaction is just way to complex for simple mathematical or statistical formulas to predict.

Austrian economics predicted to the dotted I and crossed T the entire financial crisis of 2008. It predicted precisely when the real estate bubble would burst and the ripple effect it would cause. People laughed when these austrian supporters tried to give warnings. Do a youtube of Peter Schiff. He supports the austrian school and he predicted DEAD ON the entire financial crisis...watch the videos as every single person ridicules him for his "doomsday" predictions. Following the austrian school's theory's...we are on the road to hyperinflation. Schiff predicted the real estate burst and everyone laughed at him, he also predicts hyperinflation and everyone is laughing at him.

At the rate the Fed is pumping money into circulation, I don't think hyperinflation is too far fetched. I hope I'm wrong.

[judgeposer]

[quote name='LZ22' date='23 December 2009 - 04:48 AM' timestamp='1261561721' post='441243']
I would like everyone to do some research in Austrian School of Economics. This school of thought is widely critiqued and a minority thought process. It sort of points out that a market economy and human interaction is just way to complex for simple mathematical or statistical formulas to predict.

Austrian economics predicted to the dotted I and crossed T the entire financial crisis of 2008. It predicted precisely when the real estate bubble would burst and the ripple effect it would cause. People laughed when these austrian supporters tried to give warnings. Do a youtube of Peter Schiff. He supports the austrian school and he predicted DEAD ON the entire financial crisis...watch the videos as every single person ridicules him for his "doomsday" predictions. Following the austrian school's theory's...we are on the road to hyperinflation. Schiff predicted the real estate burst and everyone laughed at him, he also predicts hyperinflation and everyone is laughing at him.

At the rate the Fed is pumping money into circulation, I don't think hyperinflation is too far fetched. I hope I'm wrong.
[/quote]

I am not a student of economics, not by a long shot, though I did dabble in some "law and economics," a school of jurisprudence that says that legal rules should maximize efficiency, and diminish negative externalities. Anyhow...I was for a time taken with the Austrian School, but not because I found it necessarily produced better, or more predictive economic theories, but because I'm a closet libertarian.

I'd like to hear from our forum economist, Dr. B, for his take on the Austrian School of economics - I don't think we've ever discussed it. Edited December 24, 2009 by judgeposer

[Click]

[quote name='LZ22' date='23 December 2009 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1261561721' post='441243']
Peter Schiff
[/quote]

He also dumped all of his US dollars for Euros back when it was 1.00 USD to 1.10 Euro.  Now it's .69.  Additionally he predicted the rising gold prices.  

[Dr. B]

First and foremost, I respect the quality of thought regarding the Austrian school of economics; but I have a reason to believe that the neoclassical ideology championed by the school, in this instance, may be the subject of much deliberation. My primary motivation to disregard (or rather dispute) the practicality of their assertions is the observance of the tremendous influence of the state in these matters. To illustrate, the Austrian school was credited earlier in this thread with predicting the housing bubble. Not to downplay their capability, but any unbiased economist could and did predict the same - regardless of their overall allegiance to neoclassical economic principles. The reason is because the lending and housing market was, aside from some relatively stable and therefore predictable constraints by the state, which would become constants in any model, at the mercy of the interpretations of price signals by lenders and borrowers and few others. There was no coordinated effort to ensure liquidity outside of the general interests of the parties in play. That being noted, the reason the housing bubble led to such a magnificent economic collapse was because of the securities that emerged from the expectation of stability with no apparent value - auxiliaries to but not agents of the mortgage market necessarily; in a simplified capacity.

The expectation of inflation, however, depends on a much more state-oriented initiative and thus the principles governing laissez faire econometric model-building cannot apply in the same capacity. To clarify briefly, when I mention "state" I make no explicit reference to any government but rather any governing body in its capacity to coerce in some way or another or control the resources available to consumers. What we see then is that the expectation that price signals are interpreted correctly by consumers - a fundamental of neoclassical economic thought that I happen to disagree with - is further diminished by the presence of an entity capable of keeping consumers ignorant about fiscal and monetary policy efforts (refer to my previous statement about the Fed. not wanting to consumers to skew market expectations before their comprehensive recovery strategy is implemented). As a consequence of the neostructuralist policy implications at play here, I find it asinine to refute the expectations of monetarists in order to champion a hypothesis based on the presumption that market coordination is far to complex mathematically to execute with any efficiency when the Austrain school (those subservient to the complexity of markets who champion said hypothesis) is fully aware of the imperfect information available to consumers with regard to central bank policy-making. Simply: The Austrian scholars want to tell me that monetary theory is imprecise, regardless of the fact that there is very realisitically a central bank in this country and fiscal policy restricting the flow of dollars in the world market, yet you (the Austrian scholars) would not hesitate to ignore the influence of imperfect information and still believe that consumers, left to their own means, would produce the most efficient market equilibria? This is not an opinion, it is an undisputed fact that imperfect information leads to inefficient markets. We as humans do not learn so that we may forget, and we certainly do ourselves no justice by ignoring the reality of the environment in which we operate.

This is my fundamental disagreement with the Austrian school pertaining to the matter at hand. I apologize, but I would have to research the explicit theories surrounding inflation they have published in order to combat their opinion in ways less rhetorical.

~
Kyle: I understand exactly where you're coming from. It is not that I am unashamed nor bashful, but rather that I am practical. What we are talking about, however, is not a matter of opinion. Though specific contributions to the welfare of mankind may be subjective (depending on how you value the units of measure), the aggregate contribution of the United States of America to the wellbeing of the rest of the world is undeniabley positive. Regardless of speculations of our presence foregone, we can see how as a nation, the U.S.A. has contributed to increases in quality of life around the globe. We have done good. It is for this reason that I am resolute in my belief we are a "better" nation than many others. Intrinsically, I don't think I am any better than the average Uzbeki or Honduran; but my potential to provide value for others and the value provided to others by constituents of my nation indicates some, albeit instrumental, disparity, 'like it or not.

[KyleTheJustin]

[quote name='Dr. B' date='24 December 2009 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1261698827' post='441583']
First and foremost, I respect the quality of thought regarding the Austrian school of economics; but I have a reason to believe that the neoclassical ideology championed by the school, in this instance, may be the subject of much deliberation. My primary motivation to disregard (or rather dispute) the practicality of their assertions is the observance of the tremendous influence of the state in these matters. To illustrate, the Austrian school was credited earlier in this thread with predicting the housing bubble. Not to downplay their capability, but any unbiased economist could and did predict the same - regardless of their overall allegiance to neoclassical economic principles. The reason is because the lending and housing market was, aside from some relatively stable and therefore predictable constraints by the state, which would become constants in any model, at the mercy of the interpretations of price signals by lenders and borrowers and few others. There was no coordinated effort to ensure liquidity outside of the general interests of the parties in play. That being noted, the reason the housing bubble led to such a magnificent economic collapse was because of the securities that emerged from the expectation of stability with no apparent value - auxiliaries to but not agents of the mortgage market necessarily; in a simplified capacity.

The expectation of inflation, however, depends on a much more state-oriented initiative and thus the principles governing laissez faire econometric model-building cannot apply in the same capacity. To clarify briefly, when I mention "state" I make no explicit reference to any government but rather any governing body in its capacity to coerce in some way or another or control the resources available to consumers. What we see then is that the expectation that price signals are interpreted correctly by consumers - a fundamental of neoclassical economic thought that I happen to disagree with - is further diminished by the presence of an entity capable of keeping consumers ignorant about fiscal and monetary policy efforts (refer to my previous statement about the Fed. not wanting to consumers to skew market expectations before their comprehensive recovery strategy is implemented). As a consequence of the neostructuralist policy implications at play here, I find it asinine to refute the expectations of monetarists in order to champion a hypothesis based on the presumption that market coordination is far to complex mathematically to execute with any efficiency when the Austrain school (those subservient to the complexity of markets who champion said hypothesis) is fully aware of the imperfect information available to consumers with regard to central bank policy-making. Simply: The Austrian scholars want to tell me that monetary theory is imprecise, regardless of the fact that there is very realisitically a central bank in this country and fiscal policy restricting the flow of dollars in the world market, yet you (the Austrian scholars) would not hesitate to ignore the influence of imperfect information and still believe that consumers, left to their own means, would produce the most efficient market equilibria? This is not an opinion, it is an undisputed fact that imperfect information leads to inefficient markets. We as humans do not learn so that we may forget, and we certainly do ourselves no justice by ignoring the reality of the environment in which we operate.

This is my fundamental disagreement with the Austrian school pertaining to the matter at hand. I apologize, but I would have to research the explicit theories surrounding inflation they have published in order to combat their opinion in ways less rhetorical.

~
Kyle: I understand exactly where you're coming from. It is not that I am unashamed nor bashful, but rather that I am practical. What we are talking about, however, is not a matter of opinion. Though specific contributions to the welfare of mankind may be subjective (depending on how you value the units of measure), the aggregate contribution of the United States of America to the wellbeing of the rest of the world is undeniabley positive. Regardless of speculations of our presence foregone, we can see how as a nation, the U.S.A. has contributed to increases in quality of life around the globe. We have done good. It is for this reason that I am resolute in my belief we are a "better" nation than many others. Intrinsically, I don't think I am any better than the average Uzbeki or Honduran; but my potential to provide value for others and the value provided to others by constituents of my nation indicates some, albeit instrumental, disparity, 'like it or not.
[/quote]


Very well said. I can understand that totally and, believe it or not, can partially agree.

[Sonthert]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. I would have to caution you about personal attacks and name calling. If I were some other moderator, I would imagine three of you would be sitting out the discussion (and the rest of Hookah Forum) for three days.

[KyleTheJustin]

If a forum bans people for actively discussing and issue that results in clearly seeing other people's points of view and respecting them, then give me a 3 day vacation, because that's absolutely ridiculous. Dr. B and I, at least from my understanding, have a well-rounded respect for each other and can actively discuss and debate topics in a logical manner both with and without names with no real "feelings" attached to the "name calling." To think anything else is quite ridiculous. Again, this IS an Internet forum.

[Sonthert]

On an unrelated matter,

The Great Depression was a period punctuated by two primary economic downturns, the first, and most severe of the two began in 1929 and ended in 1st quarter, 1933. The second one began in 1937, third quarter, I think. WWII dragged the United States out of the second one.

First off, I, for one, am perfectly fine with a devalued dollar. It will stimulate United States Industry and discourage imports. Internally, we won't care that much. We grow most of the important food items we need. As Dr. B points out, as the debts are in US Dollars, the devaluation of them means we're paying debtors less of their currency (from their perspective).

Second, It would be silly to assume that there wouldn't be a period of inflation after a recession. Growth causes inflation for the most part. Lowering the interest rate because of a recession causes growth. Thats basic macroeconomics.

Third, I would, rather than expect hyperinflation expect a modest inflation followed by a second recessionary period. Perhaps 2011-2012? Perhaps 2013-2014 depending on the Obama administration and the next administration's (if its not Obama) policies. Around then, you can sell your gold.

Fourth point, The United States is the dominant force in the world economy. We can't assume that will be the case forever, but all markets are predicated on US$. For instance, the price of oil is in US$. When Europe wants to buy oil, they convert Euros into US$ (not actually, but the exchange rate figures into their purchase price). The US just forks over a certain amount for each barrel. If the conversion of Euros to US$ is low, they have to use more Euros to buy oil, and vice versa if the exchange rate is high. That point alone gives the US a tremendous advantage. We have to worry about the price, other countries have to worry about the price and the exchange rate. The economic might if the United States is owed to a lot of factors, not just military might.

Fifth Point: I agree with the direction of the criticisms of US imperialism and Hegemonic determinism. Being the world's center of the economy will undoubtedly attract negative attention from detractors and would-be terrorists. The United States implementing foreign policy by a "Get rich/Do what we tell you or get shot" philosophy is morally wrong. It attracts even more (and more severe) negative attention from these would-be terrorists.

Sixth Point (although mentioned, but not relevant): Terrorism is as preventable as tornadoes. Even efficient, wealthy Police States experience terrorism. Poor Police States have nothing to worry about, generally. As long as we delve into the arena of interfering with other country's course of foreign policy or economic policy by threat of a gun, we expose ourselves to an increased risk. So far, the retributions have been relatively small, but if we experienced a significant terrorist attack, we might be quite regretful. Around 4000 people perished on 9/11. What would be the costs if 1,000,000 died or 2? There is a big difference between defense and what the United States (and other countries, too...) does. Is the war in Iraq or Afghanistan worth that high a price? I don't think so. There is no risk assessment since there has only been one attack, but the costs of our doing business the way we have could be quite costly in financial and human terms. I'm certainly not advocating a coward's position, but we have to either start annihilating problem countries with our nuclear and chemical weapons or pull back to a more respectable position that attracts less attention to the zealots of the world who care neither for American lives nor their own. Thousands of tons of illegal materials (mostly NHT) enter this country on average daily, thousands of people enter the country illegally. As long as there is an ability to ship in illegal people and materials, the recipe for disaster is at the printing press. We can make it more difficult, but we will only make them more determined and dangerous. Closing the border to Mexico is a stopgap at best. It does not address the questions. Unless we eliminate freedom in this country and stop all travel in or out of all goods or people into our country, we run a risk of terrorism. So my thoughts are either pull back from our high-profile bomb-the-Hell-out-of 'em position, nuke them relatively soon or accept that the next terrorist attack could be at any time. Hiding our head in the sand is not an effective response. Which "Homeland Security" is. Unless you believe the conspiracy theorists and that there wasn't a terrorist attack. Then, hiding your head in the sand is an effective strategy...for now.

Seventh Point: I don't believe war is good for an economy, by and large. It can be economically, depending on the circumstances, but the cost to human lives can't be ignored. If the country doing the "demolition" also gets to gouge for basic necessities (or exchange for oil), charge reparations or is responsible for rebuilding the country, then economically it makes sense. If we allowed, Iraq, for instance, to "hire" any country to rebuild it, like Russia, for instance and American business got nothing for the rebuilding, then it would be a distinct drain on our economy. We build bombs, we blow them up, we have to pay for new ones, out of tax money, so we get fewer goods and services for the same amount of taxes. The jobs building bombs creates are out of the pockets of the taxpayers, so its a borrow-from-Peter-to-pay-Paul deal. If American companies on the other hand, which aren't predicated on tax dollars are hired to rebuild the country, then that serves to increase business, more jobs, more prosperity. The less we manufacture or produce in this country, the less value each war has to our economy, I would wager. As American production becomes less general and fewer and fewer items are produced here, we will get less and less marginal stimulation from each war. Its not a coincidence that the contracts to rebuild Iraq were determined long before the conclusion of the war. We should address the morality of this. If the U.S. had to pay $1,000,000 for each person killed in a foreign country, during a war (not an unreasonable sum if there was a wrongful death suit in a US Court), the cost to have a war would be staggering and prohibitive. Since we don't have to, its win-win. Also, its important to kill the able-bodied people in a war who could rebuild their own country. Fortunately, the same people fighting in an army are in the same people who would be working to rebuild it, by and large. Also, WWII would be better for an economy, since the rebuilding that needs to occur is cheaper, needs less modern equipment and technology. Grab a pile of bricks, chop down a couple of trees and go to town. Some of these examples are absurd by design, to point out that a war is not universally good for the economy. Ask France, Germany or Italy, circa 1950 their opinion of this and I'm sure you might get a different perspective. Its clearly bad for an economy long-term, owing to the depletion of non-renewable resources and that their true costs are masked.

I had to listen to gloom and doom predictions from my father most of my young life. He grew up during the Depression. He predicted the collapse of the American Economy a dozen times. Coincidentally, he was wrong a dozen times. He certainly wasn't the scholar that Dr. B is. That being said, to the detractors, don't let Dr. B's formidable education intimidate you. Sometimes, the scholars are stumped. There is no perfect model that explains everything. Sometimes the crackpots will have their day. Albert Einstein used the orbit of the Planet Mercury to predict relationships in modern physics. Newer physicists have noted in other places that we can observe now, that the rules break down and don't work too well. Of course, some people criticized Einstein and they were summarily called all sorts of things, but in short, they had to take on the "bulk" of Einstein and the force of the science of the time. They turned out to be right...maybe?

[Sonthert]

[quote name='Sonthert' date='25 December 2009 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1261809746' post='441779']
Gentlemen, gentlemen. I would have to caution you about personal attacks and name calling. If I were some other moderator, I would imagine three of you would be sitting out the discussion (and the rest of Hookah Forum) for three days.
[/quote]

Make that gentlemen and ladies. My apologies to the lady present.

Ladies. My bad. Again.