The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

JSPB22 wrote:Well, I don't agree with his assessment of how each of those incidents were handled by the press, but I was not commenting on his post, just summarizing. Were I to comment, I would say that his angry-white-male reaction to the press coverage is the desired response elicited by the corporations that provide the "news." I would also remind readers that Bush had a Republican congress for much of his administration, but that didn't seem to help the budget deficits in the least.

Has the deficit gotten better in the last 2 years, or are you suggesting that isn't enough time to really screw up the budget?

'nuff said.

No. It's not a partisan thing is my point. Both parties run up the deficit.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I'm a libertarian, of course I'm against budget deficits. I wasn't arguing ideology when I pointed out your article trumpeting "record" deficits was irrelevant, I was arguing you were using a meaningless measure of a "record." I meant what I said.

A Livertarian or a Libertarian?

You better be worried about the NET deficit. Tax increases usually follow suit. They do not fix the problem, quite the opposite. But you can go on arguing that a large and sustained net deficit is meaningless both in terms of a healthy economy but also in the formulation of fiscal revenue policies.

I was only half-joking when I wrote about your potential bankruptcy. Pray to God that your level of revenue is maintained. Otherwise, your LARGE collateral security will fall in shambles. I only extend that logic by analogy to the US. We have not seen a debacle in key industrial sectors YET such as the automotive industry. The latest rumour I heard was about talks among GM and Chrysler to merge.

JSPB22 wrote:I understood your point, but I don't think you got mine. Yes the ratio of deficit to GDP has remained steady, but the national debt has not. That is the credit card account where this deficit spending ends up. We are not paying down the principal, and eventually the bank is going to send the repo man around to collect our stuff.

OK, fair enough. Actually, if you think about it logically in an accurate accounting, the national debt WOULD in fact remain proportional to GDP if deficits are remaining proportional. There is actually a very specific reason it's not and it's because politicians of both parties are liars and using bogus accounting. This is totally not a "Democrats are worse then Republicans" issue. This is a they are BOTH liars issue. Care to take a stab at what it is?

Irn-Bru wrote:Uh. . .what? I promise I'll try to respond, but I think I'm going to need a summary or thesis statement, or something. I have no idea what's going on here.

It was a rant of media bias issues. They were all mainstream stories and every time the left benefited from the media's interest as they always do. The problem with media bias is it's not one story, it's that in every case what is and isn't an issue falls to the benefit of the left as in both sides of my rant. What I want is not to give the Republicans any sort of pass, I want them to stop giving the Democrats constant passes and treat them with the contempt they treat Republicans who so richly deserve it. I would also like them to stop ignoring CONSERVATIVE ideology as they do. You hear all the time about what socialists want in this country. You NEVER hear about Social Security being a welfare program and social security accounting being a lie (hint to another post). You never hear about anyone who wants less government, only those who want more. And that's why Republicans are now socialists light. People are sheep and believe the left skewed stories are THE story. Let's debate HOW FAR left to go on every issue is skewed reporting if you want to see it or not.

Cappster wrote:I know sometimes I just cannot read all of a Kazooskins post, because he gets rather long winded.

True. But at least I have rant mode and serious mode. When I get in rant mode like that post, I'm not really expecting a serious reply.

JSPB22 wrote:He's angry...

Right, I'm angry. That's a pretty poor reading of my posts.

JSPB22 wrote:because the liberal media quickly persecutes Republicans while giving a free pass to Democrats who commit similar, or even worse transgressions.

Regarding the budget, they are BOTH guilty. I object to...

JSPB22 wrote:He also blames the Democratic Congress for Bush's budget deficits.

This nonsense the President is responsible for budgets passed by Congress, who aren't responsible. All my points were they are ALL guilty. Going back to the media bias arguments I want to attack Republicans with truth, not lie, and I want the Democrats held accountable as well. What a wacko. Regarding budgets, read the Constitution and come back to discuss, it describes how money is appropriated in this country and that the President can't.

JSPB22 wrote:Well, I don't agree with his assessment of how each of those incidents were handled by the press, but I was not commenting on his post, just summarizing. Were I to comment, I would say that his angry-white-male reaction to the press coverage is the desired response elicited by the corporations that provide the "news." I would also remind readers that Bush had a Republican congress for much of his administration, but that didn't seem to help the budget deficits in the least.

Bush sucked.

Regarding the "angry-white-male" part of my post, what part of my post had anything to do with "white?" Typical left argument, when a liberal can't win on the facts and the facts never support liberal arguments, start going into the "isms." THAT'S racism! You should be embarrassed.

Countertrey wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:He's angry because the liberal media quickly persecutes Republicans while giving a free pass to Democrats who commit similar, or even worse transgressions.

You don't agree that the 2 paragraphs of rant in his post are an impressive list of 1 for 1 comparisons? That doesn't at least peak your curiosity? You can just dismiss that list? I, personally, think it is an outstanding demonstration of the political hypocrisy of the press

Thanks! I was writing it for myself for fun, but I appreciate it wasn't completely missed.

Redskin in Canada wrote:A Livertarian or a Libertarian?

Wow, a liberal questioning my libertarianism. Now that hurts.

Redskin in Canada wrote:You better be worried about the NET deficit. Tax increases usually follow suit. They do not fix the problem, quite the opposite. But you can go on arguing that a large and sustained net deficit is meaningless both in terms of a healthy economy but also in the formulation of fiscal revenue policies.

Once again, I am saying the Republicans suck and are fiscally irresponsible, they are SOCIALIST. But I want to attack them with truth, not lies like that our current deficit is in any meaningful way a "record" and not for the liberal intent of crushing free enterprise with more tax increases and that somehow liberals are more fiscally responsible for advocating suffocating tax increases.

Redskin in Canada wrote:I was only half-joking when I wrote about your potential bankruptcy. Pray to God that your level of revenue is maintained. Otherwise, your LARGE collateral security will fall in shambles. I only extend that logic by analogy to the US. We have not seen a debacle in key industrial sectors YET such as the automotive industry. The latest rumour I heard was about talks among GM and Chrysler to merge.

Yes, you and welch are obviously very, very concerned about unemployed people coming on the site in their free time and pumping capitalism and blasting socialism. See my point that to a liberal any statement no matter how ludicrous that supports a liberal position is "truth" no matter how absurd and no point no matter how true when countering liberal arguments are lies.

But to you and welch, while I appreciate your great concern for my employment status, all I can say is don't worry about it. I'm fine. But seriously, I'm supposed to be offended at your remarks I'm probably an unemployed capitalism pumper?



You guys really need to work on your insults. I CAN'T GET A JOB SO I'M on the internet PUMPING CAPITALISM!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:It was a rant of media bias issues.

OK, but we were talking about who is to blame for the budget deficits. It's traditional to talk about an administration being to blame, even though everyone recognizes that it also takes Congress to make it happen. You took RiC's reference to Bush to be an argument that it was only Bush causing it. A clear straw man.

I call you out on this and now we're talking about. . .media bias? Uuuummmmmmm, OK.

Kaz wrote:They were all mainstream stories and every time the left benefited from the media's interest as they always do.

Yes, the left benefits from most mainstream coverage. But so does the right, in my view. Can you guess the genus that is benefiting such that both species (left and right) benefit? I think the answer is more satisfying than your own hypothesis here.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:A Livertarian or a Libertarian?

Wow, a liberal questioning my libertarianism. Now that hurts.

I don't think you know very much about RiC's views. I don't blame you, because he's only hinted at positive views on THN and mostly (whenever he contributes to political threads) criticizes.

But here's a hint. . .he's not a 'mainstream Canadian', which is what you seem to suspect.

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:It was a rant of media bias issues.

OK, but we were talking about who is to blame for the budget deficits. It's traditional to talk about an administration being to blame, even though everyone recognizes that it also takes Congress to make it happen. You took RiC's reference to Bush to be an argument that it was only Bush causing it. A clear straw man.

I call you out on this and now we're talking about. . .media bias? Uuuummmmmmm, OK.

Yes, headlines this is a "record" deficit story are the discussion and those headlines are complete bias. There is no perspective, no counter story. Only the relentless liberal slant and when the conclusions are implied instead of stated the purpose is ignored by liberals and liberal apologists.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Kaz wrote:They were all mainstream stories and every time the left benefited from the media's interest as they always do.

Yes, the left benefits from most mainstream coverage. But so does the right, in my view

I think we have to separate here "right" from "Republican." There is absolutely no benefit of conservatism in the media. The question is not whether we go with socialism but how much and how fast, an approach Republicans have completely endorsed, but no conservative/right ever would.

Irn-Bru wrote:Can you guess the genus that is benefiting such that both species (left and right) benefit? I think the answer is more satisfying than your own hypothesis here.

I'm not clear what you're asking me here. I could guess, but can you rephrase so I don't misinterpret?

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:A Livertarian or a Libertarian?

Wow, a liberal questioning my libertarianism. Now that hurts.

I don't think you know very much about RiC's views. I don't blame you, because he's only hinted at positive views on THN and mostly (whenever he contributes to political threads) criticizes.

But here's a hint. . .he's not a 'mainstream Canadian', which is what you seem to suspect.

I agree he hasn't stated his positive views. His criticisms are ALWAYS self serving to the Left though. He has yet in anything I've ever seen actually criticized the left or their agenda. I can't comment on his positive views unless he wants to provide some of them. I've pretty clearly in the past gone back in forth with arguments then completely changed gears to serious when someone makes an actual point beyond the headlines and if he wants to do that I'd reciprocate with serious. But if he wants to keep quacking, I'm going to keep calling him a duck.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Yes, headlines this is a "record" deficit story are the discussion and those headlines are complete bias. There is no perspective, no counter story. Only the relentless liberal slant and when the conclusions are implied instead of stated the purpose is ignored by liberals and liberal apologists.

The GDP isn't a good economic measure of much on it's own right or slapped together with another figure. It's even worse to assume that it represents how much we can actually pay back. There are important respects in which the budget deficit is "record," so if you think that's liberal bias then OK, but in my opinion you've been inexplicably selective in your own interpretation of the data.

Kaz wrote:The question is not whether we go with socialism but how much and how fast, an approach Republicans have completely endorsed, but no conservative/right ever would.

Even with a charitable reading of 'conservative' here, I'm not seeing what's so great about conservatism. Conservatives have supported many of the recent wars we've had and laud many of the past wars; and war is "the health of the State." In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too: claim to be small government while often supporting the single greatest contributor to big government.

Conservatives also support a considerable portion of US infrastructure and welfare, not to mention a socialized monetary system. They are on the socialist bandwagon, and that's clear even when we give 'conservatism' as an ideology the benefit of the doubt.

The Republicans are, of course, even worse.

For all their talk of smaller government, lower taxes, or whatever, well-intentioned conservatives still remind me of a great quote by Thoreau: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

Kaz wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Can you guess the genus that is benefiting such that both species (left and right) benefit? I think the answer is more satisfying than your own hypothesis here.

I'm not clear what you're asking me here. I could guess, but can you rephrase so I don't misinterpret?

Sure, I'll put it this way. We both agree that typical media reporting and analysis gives political benefit to establishment powersuits. You are claiming that the liberals receive this benefit at the expense of the conservatives. I'm agreeing with you insofar as liberals are (very often) benefiting from news coverage. But I'm adding to this the idea that the conservatives are at the same time benefiting.

Since you typically posit liberal and conservative (and yes, I mean that and not Republicans) as polar opposites, this should appear like a curious contradiction. But what I'm further positing is that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are species of a genus, and that genus is what is truly benefiting from 99.9% of media reporting and analysis.

Can you guess what that genus is, from my perspective?

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Yes, headlines this is a "record" deficit story are the discussion and those headlines are complete bias. There is no perspective, no counter story. Only the relentless liberal slant and when the conclusions are implied instead of stated the purpose is ignored by liberals and liberal apologists.

The GDP isn't a good economic measure of much on it's own right or slapped together with another figure. It's even worse to assume that it represents how much we can actually pay back. There are important respects in which the budget deficit is "record," so if you think that's liberal bias then OK, but in my opinion you've been inexplicably selective in your own interpretation of the data.

I disagree that the GDP isn't a "good" measure, it is a very good measure. It is not a "perfect" measure though. Economists think it's good, I'm an MBA, I've studied economics, I agree with them.

When you say, "in my opinion you've been inexplicably selective in your own interpretation of the data" I don't get what that means since all I've done is mocked the liberal use of records in nominal terms. Since I haven't actually MADE an argument with the data I'm at a loss as to how I could be "misinterpreting" it. They aren't being serious, just presenting Bush bashing stats. So I'm bashing their stats.

If it were up to me, we would have a far smaller military and no socialism structure and a budget like 1/4 the size it is now (off the cuff guess). Maybe less. I don't have a theory as to if you want the massive socialism both parties do you fund it since I think the whole premise is flawed. Low tax rates are easy to sustain because people don't AVOID taxes like they do when they are suffocating like they are.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Well, I don't agree with his assessment of how each of those incidents were handled by the press, but I was not commenting on his post, just summarizing. Were I to comment, I would say that his angry-white-male reaction to the press coverage is the desired response elicited by the corporations that provide the "news." I would also remind readers that Bush had a Republican congress for much of his administration, but that didn't seem to help the budget deficits in the least.

Bush sucked.

Regarding the "angry-white-male" part of my post, what part of my post had anything to do with "white?" Typical left argument, when a liberal can't win on the facts and the facts never support liberal arguments, start going into the "isms." THAT'S racism! You should be embarrassed.

I have nothing to be embarrassed about. I was referring to the AWM demographic from which the media stories you brought up were targeted to solicit your exact response. I have no idea what race you are, nor does that matter.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Well, I don't agree with his assessment of how each of those incidents were handled by the press, but I was not commenting on his post, just summarizing. Were I to comment, I would say that his angry-white-male reaction to the press coverage is the desired response elicited by the corporations that provide the "news." I would also remind readers that Bush had a Republican congress for much of his administration, but that didn't seem to help the budget deficits in the least.

Bush sucked.

Regarding the "angry-white-male" part of my post, what part of my post had anything to do with "white?" Typical left argument, when a liberal can't win on the facts and the facts never support liberal arguments, start going into the "isms." THAT'S racism! You should be embarrassed.

I have nothing to be embarrassed about. I was referring to the AWM demographic from which the media stories you brought up were targeted to solicit your exact response. I have no idea what race you are, nor does that matter.

Any statement that supports a liberal view is truth no matter how absurd, any statement that counters one is a lie no matter how true. Got it, thanks!

Irn-Bru wrote:

Kaz wrote:The question is not whether we go with socialism but how much and how fast, an approach Republicans have completely endorsed, but no conservative/right ever would.

Even with a charitable reading of 'conservative' here, I'm not seeing what's so great about conservatism. Conservatives have supported many of the recent wars we've had and laud many of the past wars; and war is "the health of the State." In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too: claim to be small government while often supporting the single greatest contributor to big government.

Conservatives also support a considerable portion of US infrastructure and welfare, not to mention a socialized monetary system. They are on the socialist bandwagon, and that's clear even when we give 'conservatism' as an ideology the benefit of the doubt.

The Republicans are, of course, even worse.

For all their talk of smaller government, lower taxes, or whatever, well-intentioned conservatives still remind me of a great quote by Thoreau: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

Let me answer this way and tell me if I missed a point. Let's go back to what the terms really mean. It gets so convoluted because the people who use the labels aren't, to your point. So I'm going to say my view and I THINK that'll address your points. Again say so if not. Let me go back to two things I've said I really believe.

Kaz:
- A true conservative or a true liberal would be a political libertarian.
- A libertarian is conservative like the Right, except we mean it, and a libertarian is liberal like a Democrat, except we mean it.

A conservative is for personal responsibility. That means it's THEIR job to provide charity, their job to encourage morality and other country's jobs to find their own way. A liberal is for personal liberty and charity. That means THEY should provide charity, and government should stay out of morality and other country's business.

The reality in this country is that Conservatives and Liberals have both copped out and turned over what's MOST important to them to government ignoring the inherent corruption and ineffectiveness of doing so and they continue to ignore it as the inevitable counter results to their supposed objectives happen. Government controlling morality makes NO sense to a true conservative and Government providing ineffective, harmful so called "charity" which chains people to and does not free people from government would be abhorant to a true liberal.

Regarding the miliary, it's the same. A conservative would be upset in the Middle East we're in other people's business and there's a direct consequence of them being in ours and they're not. A true liberal would care we are helping the Iraqi and Afghani people regardless of the political consequences to themselves, they're not. Or a true liberal would just oppose the miliary when anyone uses it, not just when the Republicans do, they're not. We have no real conservatives OR liberals in this country.

Anyway, to pick a term "American Conservative" you get fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. There aren't many, but Rush Limbaugh would be an example of one. With Republicans you get fiscal liberalism and social conservatism. With liberalism you get fiscal liberalism and social liberalism. With Democrats you get fiscal liberalism and social conservatism. The reality is Democrats oppose personal liberty in this country despite a couple exceptions for all the major issues. They support the drug war, government ownership of our bodies, prostitution, gambling. They also support the incredible intrusion of the IRS and war on drugs in our privacy because it supports their big government objectives.

A libertarian is in fact fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The opposite of a Democrat, or a Republican actually. The Republicans are just more socially conservative and the Democrats more fiscally liberal.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:A libertarian is in fact fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The opposite of a Democrat, or a Republican actually.

I think the changes you made to this paragraph are telling.

Before editing, KazooSkinsFan wrote:A libertarian is in fact fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The opposite of a LIBERAL. And very different from Conservatives. Consistent with my endlessly blasting the very different Republicans, but even more for the polar opposite liberals.

Kaz wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Can you guess the genus that is benefiting such that both species (left and right) benefit? I think the answer is more satisfying than your own hypothesis here.

I'm not clear what you're asking me here. I could guess, but can you rephrase so I don't misinterpret?

Sure, I'll put it this way. We both agree that typical media reporting and analysis gives political benefit to establishment powersuits. You are claiming that the liberals receive this benefit at the expense of the conservatives. I'm agreeing with you insofar as liberals are (very often) benefiting from news coverage. But I'm adding to this the idea that the conservatives are at the same time benefiting.

Since you typically posit liberal and conservative (and yes, I mean that and not Republicans) as polar opposites, this should appear like a curious contradiction. But what I'm further positing is that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are species of a genus, and that genus is what is truly benefiting from 99.9% of media reporting and analysis.

Can you guess what that genus is, from my perspective?[/quote]
Well, there are so few liberals OR conservatives in this country, it's really a philosophical question. Again to summarize my last post since as I said I believe a true conservative or liberal would be a political libertarian. But I would actually argue that the reality is that I can see the media supporting both Republicans AND democrats but conservatives less.

The parties - advocate socialism and morality laws, the Democats agree. They both fight over nits and agree on ALL the primary objectives. This allows them to trade power blowing minor issues to massive caverns in the press, which the press eats up, while going the same direction of massive and increasing government control over our wallets AND bodies for the benefit to themselves.

My biggest beef with the media is that there is absolutely no presentation of fiscal conservatism and fiscal conservatives are the ones they single out for destruction. I think I'm not using your concept of conservative and liberal in saying that, so come back with another round based on what I'm saying and I'll try again.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:A libertarian is in fact fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The opposite of a Democrat, or a Republican actually.

I think the changes you made to this paragraph are telling.

Before editing, KazooSkinsFan wrote:A libertarian is in fact fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The opposite of a LIBERAL. And very different from Conservatives. Consistent with my endlessly blasting the very different Republicans, but even more for the polar opposite liberals.

It is telling. What it says is that since the words are so interchangeably misused I have trouble with what I am trying to say myself and it took me a couple shots to get what I'm saying right. Problem is since I already said that this is a non point. Nice try though. In my thinking I was thinking of Conservatives verus Democrats, which I realized wasn't my point and I went back to fix it to compare REPUBLICANS to Democrats, who are the same.

Kaz wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:I understood your point, but I don't think you got mine. Yes the ratio of deficit to GDP has remained steady, but the national debt has not. That is the credit card account where this deficit spending ends up. We are not paying down the principal, and eventually the bank is going to send the repo man around to collect our stuff.

OK, fair enough. Actually, if you think about it logically in an accurate accounting, the national debt WOULD in fact remain proportional to GDP if deficits are remaining proportional. There is actually a very specific reason it's not and it's because politicians of both parties are liars and using bogus accounting. This is totally not a "Democrats are worse then Republicans" issue. This is a they are BOTH liars issue. Care to take a stab at what it is?

What about responding to this. There is a clear answer to this question, and it's proof positive the REPUBICANS and Democrats are liars.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I disagree that the GDP isn't a "good" measure, it is a very good measure. It is not a "perfect" measure though. Economists think it's good, I'm an MBA, I've studied economics, I agree with them.

Economists have pointed out a good deal of problems with the GDP, especially when it comes to government projects, bubbles caused by intervention in credit markets, and savings rates. I'm no MBA but I have a limited background economics, and enough at that to know that the favorite measure of central banks and governments worldwide has some issues.

I'm thinking of, in particular, Huerta de Soto in his book Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles. I have fuzzy memories of Ludwig von Mises and George Reisman discussing this in their respective treatises on economics. Frank Shostak also wrote an informative article on this that I can't find right now, but it's on Mises.org somewhere.

Kaz wrote:When you say, "in my opinion you've been inexplicably selective in your own interpretation of the data" I don't get what that means since all I've done is mocked the liberal use of records in nominal terms.

No, you've submitted your own measure of how "healthy" our debt is: budget deficits as a percentage of GDP. I.e., that things were much worse during WWII because of the budget deficit compared to national economic output.

Frankly, the focus on one particular year's deficit or surplus seems a bit misguided to me. The trend is the problematic thing. It's not like they plan on using tax dollars to pay for it.

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I disagree that the GDP isn't a "good" measure, it is a very good measure. It is not a "perfect" measure though. Economists think it's good, I'm an MBA, I've studied economics, I agree with them.

Economists have pointed out a good deal of problems with the GDP, especially when it comes to government projects, bubbles caused by intervention in credit markets, and savings rates. I'm no MBA but I have a limited background economics, and enough at that to know that the favorite measure of central banks and governments worldwide has some issues.

I'm thinking of, in particular, Huerta de Soto in his book Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles. I have fuzzy memories of Ludwig von Mises and George Reisman discussing this in their respective treatises on economics. Frank Shostak also wrote an informative article on this that I can't find right now, but it's on Mises.org somewhere.

Again I totally agree it's not a perfect measure. Actually a HUGE issue supporting your point about our ability to repay our debts is the question JSPB22 keeps dodging. But it's a whole heck of a lot more accurate to compare deficits to GDP then simply count nominal deficits which immediately fades in meaning and by the time you get to about Reagan going back completely and utterly loses all meaning.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Kaz wrote:When you say, "in my opinion you've been inexplicably selective in your own interpretation of the data" I don't get what that means since all I've done is mocked the liberal use of records in nominal terms.

No, you've submitted your own measure of how "healthy" our debt is: budget deficits as a percentage of GDP. I.e., that things were much worse during WWII because of the budget deficit compared to national economic output.

Frankly, the focus on one particular year's deficit or surplus seems a bit misguided to me. The trend is the problematic thing. It's not like they plan on using tax dollars to pay for it.

You're taking my points beyond what I meant. I was using WWI and that year as an EXAMPLE that we do not have a "record." That's all I said and all I meant. I totally think focusing on one year is irrelevant, totally agree with you. But as I said in my last point with nominal measures just because of the growth in our economy by the time we get to Reagan the meaning's pretty small and every year prior is immediately thrown out and they shouldn't be. You have to use SOME level of "real" and not "nominal" values to compare years other then ones next to each other in low inflation years.