Pyrian on 2/8/2011 at 20:02
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
You explicitly claim we have "stagflation." Stagflation requires "inflation."
We are NOT currently experiencing inflation. In no uncertain terms.
I'm bemused by the fact that, hyperinflation having failed to materialize, the right wing is now simply claiming that it IS occurring, despite all available evidence stating in no uncertain terms that it is not occurring. We've reached a new level of the big lie: people believing in things that their own constant everyday observations prove to be entirely incorrect, simply because they've been told it is so.
BEAR on 3/8/2011 at 04:53
Thanks for your explanation RBJ. Enjoyable and informative as always.
Also, to the many non-US posters: Many of us in the US are very embarrassed about this entire episode. We have, as a country, a number of stupid things to be embarrassed about, but the shear childishness and absurdity of this particular political spat makes it all the more saddening. Sorry and hope you don't think too poorly of us.
CCCToad on 3/8/2011 at 07:04
So, does unemployment count discouraged workers, or does it not?
And which one is more relevant?
It does not matter how exact the definition is, if the definition has nothing to do with reality then it should be discarded.
Still, I have no reason to pay attention to a childish berating by one who is so blinded by partisan hate that he blames the push for cuts on the evil Republicans, when all the evidence indicates that it was Obama who has been pushing for those deep cuts in welfare programs.
You're like the guy on the left here.
Inline Image:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y_eePl4m5ok/TjcObpFtrqI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/7_Zwxx3mVPg/s320/vastleft.pngQuote:
We've reached a new level of the big lie: people believing in things that their own constant everyday observations prove to be entirely incorrect, simply because they've been told it is so.
Thats not a new level of the big lie at all. I remember this time last year everyone was buzzing about how the economy was "on the verge of recovery" with no evidence to prove it. The evidence? A lot of media buzz.
I even remember Junky himself at one point telling me to fuck off because I was wrong that the economy wasn't recovering, and that it would recover in the coming months (the summer of 2010).
edit: I like this blurb. Sometimes a broken clock (or an idiot) can be right
Quote:
The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn't fight at all. . . . We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? When the final tally comes in for the 2012 presidential race, who among us wouldn't bet that Barack Obama is going to beat his Republican opponent in the fundraising column very handily? At the very least, he won't be out-funded, I can almost guarantee that.
And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?
It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?
Shug on 3/8/2011 at 11:02
Quote Posted by CCCToad
It does not matter how exact the definition is, if the definition has nothing to do with reality then it should be discarded.
Where's your sense of shame
Trance on 3/8/2011 at 11:48
Quote Posted by CCCToad
It does not matter how exact the definition is, if the definition has nothing to do with reality then it should be discarded.
wow what the fuck
SeriousCallersOnly on 3/8/2011 at 12:27
Quote Posted by CCCToad
You're forgetting that the only thing that the Republican party despises more than liberals is their own base. They'll do what they did in the spending debate: put up a loud show of hating big government spending while the party elites quietly put together a bipartisan proposal that will be passed without a fuss. In many cases, they are already having a "rational conversation with a negro". For example Obama is working with the GOP to push social security cuts.
And, while racism is a particularly odious example, most of American politics since the founding has been more about hating the cartoon caricuture villians of the opposition than supporting any rational position.
edit: One idea I've had in my head that I'd like feedback on, I'll keep it very simple (oversimplified). It seems to me that a genuine economic recovery is going to be very difficult currently. The new "service economy" was widely touted as the greatest thing ever, that would bring us all to new hights of prosperity. My impression that this idea should be ridiculous to everyone who had taken econ 101, due to the amount of white collar jobs that would be made. I remember that there are three main economic sectors: Primary(harvesting resources), secondary (turning resources into goods), and tertiary (management and other white collar jobs). The problem is that the number of jobs created by each sector forms a pyramid:
Inline Image:
http://www.regionalentwicklung.de/bilder/sectors_of_economy.jpgDue to the fact that the number of tertiary jobs is in most economies only a small fraction of the jobs produced by the primary and secondary sectors, it seems unlikely that the new "service based economy" would ever be able to permanently replace the massive number of jobs lost to outsourcing and automation of America's production economy, and anecdotal evidence seems to back this up: what I hear about most commonly is people laid off from producing jobs and forced into extremely tough competition for a limited number of (usually poorly paying) service sector jobs.
Is this completely wrong, or is there any bit of truth in my assessment?
In advanced economies, currently the pyramid is being inverted in the primary and secondary.
Good luck with the food riots of 2016.
Rug Burn Junky on 3/8/2011 at 12:43
Quote Posted by CCCToad
It does not matter how exact the definition is, if the definition has nothing to do with reality then it should be discarded.
When the definition is used to build upon with a predictive formula, and one definition works with that formula, you can't just substitute in entirely different meanings. YOU are the one who is trying to use semantics rather than reflect reality.
Now you're at the point where you're saying that 2^4 = 6, and when we tell you "Actually, 2 to the 4th power equals 16," your response is "see, i'm only off by 1! Close enough!"
Fucking christ when will you realize that you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about? I'm berating you because there is the potential for a serious discussion here, and you are simply polluting it with ignorance. And when it is pointed out in no uncertain terms that you are DEAD WRONG, you have no other reaction but to argue to the death grasping at increasingly smaller straws (ie. mischaracterizing everything I've said on the subject, ranging from your own benign misunderstanding to outright distortion, not to mention your resent-driven ad hominem in your most recent previous post).
Just stop.
Really, you are not accomplishing anything by continuing. Nobody appreciates it. You're an outright dick, who doesn't know when to shut the fuck up for his own good.
CCCToad on 3/8/2011 at 14:30
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Now you're at the point where you're saying that 2^4 = 6, and when we tell you "Actually, 2 to the 4th power equals 16," your response is "see, i'm only off by 1! Close enough!"
.
And if there are actually 3, and not 2, then that equation is completely useless and irrelevant to reality.
What you all are too histrionic to even consider is that maybe we should re-examine some of our definitions. If the definition is faulty, any formula based off it will fail to reflect reality.
Another question that nobody in the media's really been asking is how this debt deal is going to affect the economy in the long run. It seems I was correct in my prediction that they would pass a new deal quietly, with no meaningful spending or any sensible cuts. Even by immediately abandoning all military interventionism, the US still going to be deep in the red financially.
Worst of all was that there's no attempt to raise revenue: God forbid that close some corporate loopholes while everyone in the working classes is getting their benefits cut.
edit for question: Does anyone have any idea what this "Super Committee" is? Mainstream news only briefly mentions it and nobody else is able to give a complete description of how it operates.
CCCToad on 3/8/2011 at 14:54
Quote Posted by SeriousCallersOnly
Good luck with the food riots of 2016.
Please, Girlfriend. It won't be food riots, but Ipad riots that start when it is announed that the IPad 3 will cost more than most people make in a year due to hyperinflation :cool:
Rug Burn Junky on 3/8/2011 at 14:56
Quote Posted by CCCToad
we should re-examine some of our definitions. If the definition is faulty, any formula based off it will fail to reflect reality.
Here's the rub: I know and understand the definitions and formulas, from both practical professional experience and advanced academic work which you lack. You've amply demonstrated that you don't understand it and you continue to brush that off.
That is why I have a basis for my opinions, and yours are worthless. That's not "histrionics," it's a fairly sober assessment of what's happening here.
Now stop polluting.
