CCCToad on 1/8/2011 at 13:34
Maybe you could enlighten as to what exactly I'm a proponent of.
Rug Burn Junky on 1/8/2011 at 14:45
Words have meanings. This is not semantics, these are technical terms. You explicitly claim we have "stagflation." Stagflation requires "inflation."
We are NOT currently experiencing inflation. In no uncertain terms.
Ergo, stagflation doesn't exist, and you are patently incorrect. Q.E.D.
If you're asking me to outline your overall position, I've been trying to figure that out myself and it beats the shit out of me: I don't speak moron.
Nicker on 1/8/2011 at 17:53
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
I don't speak moron.
I can recommend a great correspondence course.
Ghostly Apparition on 1/8/2011 at 18:38
Just want to thank RBJ for taking the time to respond here.. everything you're saying is spot on..
Shug on 2/8/2011 at 01:08
Very interesting read, I needed some ammunition against a few anti-interventionist republican supporters on other forums I frequent.
CCCToad on 2/8/2011 at 04:41
If not technically "stagflation" I'm not sure that the effects are any different. The US is still in that situation where the effects of deliberate inflation (using the old definition of increasing money supply, not increasing prices) are going to push households deeper into debt, not relieve debt.
Doing so is going to benefit the financial markets at the expense of everyone else.
Rug Burn Junky on 2/8/2011 at 12:31
If you don't know what it is, you don't get to opine on what the effects are.
CCCToad on 2/8/2011 at 16:47
The thing, is the technical definitions are not an exact science. They can and frequently do change to support whatever contemporary thinking. Both inflation and employment mean different things than they did twenty years ago, and hte definition of inflation has changed entirely in the past fifty. If you use the old defintion of "expansion of the money supply", then hell yes there is inflation. Even unemployment means very different things. If you use the Canadian way of measuring it, America's unemployment rate is 17%. Using the pre-1994 definition gives you a similar statistic.
The question ought not to be what the technical definition is, but which definition is the one that best reflects reality. Saying that we have no real inflation and that unemployment is 8-9% doesn't.
Also keep in mind how your frame of reference tinges things. It may seem to you, as you rake in huge bonuses at one of the ony firms to see profits, that the economy is rolling along fine. I guarantee that a week-long vacation in "flyover country" would impact your thinking.
Perhaps try taking a visit to Tulsa, or a poor neighborhood in Chicago. Then you might realize that far from the country being fine, things are so bad that there's areas which are near a state of civil unreast
Rug Burn Junky on 2/8/2011 at 17:12
Oh fucking christ, you're retarded. What, i'm begging you, do we have to do to get you to shut the fuck up? They ARE exact terms, and you're just jumbling them around in your head because you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about, at the most basic level.
It's like you see some equations:
2 + 2 = 4
2 x 2 = 4
Then you see another couple of equations:
2 + 4 = 6
2 x 4 = ?
And you are convinced that the answer is 6. Because you don't grasp the crucial differences between the situations. Now stop doubling down on your ignorance. You are speaking gibberish.
Inflation doesn't mean what you think it means.
stagflation doesn't mean what you think it means.
Stimulus doesn't mean what you think it means.
keynesianism doesn't mean what you think it means.
Unemployment doesn't mean what you think it means.
Hell, "exact science" doesn't even seem to mean what you think it means.
When you are mistaken about every component that makes up a discussion, any conclusions you may draw are beyond useless. Not that that it has ever stopped you before, but please tell me what we can do to convince you that your ignorance is an impediment to you offering ANYTHING of value to anyone?
Vernon on 2/8/2011 at 17:33
lol
