|
Constitution Class - Happy 4th of July (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| st3nc |
I really feel bad for the impressionable young minds, 10-16, who read this thread, and think that it's actually a political discussion.
That being said, I'm glad I am a Native American...
and also Australians should be locked in chains...LOL (that's to re-start pkc and sush) |
|
|
| st3nc |
i'm also under the impression that from the start of my life, my parents, and everyone I have met, has been in some way stealing and raping my life from me, bit by bit, either physically, or mentally keeping me down, or treating me like
and nobody is capable of convincing me otherwise, maybe a hot girl...but she usually rapes me afterward |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Thus, the economy is not a religion, because tangible assets and their derivatives are being traded. I can touch gold and place a price on it. Can you do that with God? How much does God cost? How can I buy or sell God outside of getting gullible people to give 10% of their wealth to the church? So no, I wouldn't find any use in studying religion, to understand the economy. But I'd be open to a serious academic study on such a correlation, if it were presented to me. |
If you don't think of God as a separate entity, but rather an inseparable part of every atom in the universe then yes, God is being traded every day :p
As for the academic study you mentioned, try reading these two articles. I have the book they talk about (The Economics Of Good And Evil) and it deals with those things thoroughly, but I'm not sure if it was published in the States. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
... is that it doesn't matter as long as the devalue isn't extreme, and as long as people have more money that compensates for the loss in purchasing power. |
You just made a critical error. How can printing more money make up for the loss in purchasing power when printing more money does exactly that; creates a loss in purchasing power. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
You just made a critical error. How can printing more money make up for the loss in purchasing power when printing more money does exactly that; creates a loss in purchasing power. |
You start at the false assumption that increasing money supply is an inherently bad thing. With you holding this fundamentals false axiom, we can go no further in this discussion. Does the saying, "Everything in moderation" ring a bell? Are worker's wages rising as CEO's are? No. But ranting on with the "End the Fed" mantra, is hardly a solution. The problem doesn't go away simply by dismantling the financial system as it is, which is what "Ending the Fed" would be doing. Have you ever thought about the repercussions of said policy would do? You want Congress to conduct monetary policy? Really? Congress? |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
If you don't think of God as a separate entity, but rather an inseparable part of every atom in the universe then yes, God is being traded every day :p |
How does that help a trader, investor, central banker, or policy maker, make an economic decision? |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
You start at the false assumption that increasing money supply is an inherently bad thing. |
Wrong. I start with saying that creating more money then you had before devalues the money that was in circulation prior to the new money made. So let's work with that point. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Wrong. I start with saying that creating more money then you had before devalues the money that was in circulation prior to the new money made. So let's work with that point. |
You called it a "Critical Error"... :p |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
You called it a "Critical Error"... :p |
Shhhhh, I don't want pkc to know my "trigger" words that I know will get him all riled up. :D |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Wrong. I start with saying that creating more money then you had before devalues the money that was in circulation prior to the new money made. So let's work with that point. |
Well no . That's exactly what I said, you just worded it differently. Okay, if you want to play word games, here goes.
"Creating more money than you had before" is not inherently bad. Once you let go of this false absolutist assumption, we can have a rational discussion. Until then, applying absolute axioms to economics, a field full of subjective relativity (no/few absolutes), is going to get you no where.
Creating too much money, yea, that's bad. Who in their right mind would say otherwise? But where you go off the deep end is to say it's bad all the time, every time. It isn't. A growing economy needs a growing money supply and vice versa. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Well no . That's exactly what I said, you just worded it differently. Okay, if you want to play word games, here goes.
"Creating more money than you had before" is not inherently bad. Once you let go of this false absolutist assumption, we can have a rational discussion. Until then, applying absolute axioms to economics, a field full of subjective relativity (no/few absolutes), is going to get you no where.
Creating too much money, yea, that's bad. Who in their right mind would say otherwise? But where you go off the deep end is to say it's bad all the time, every time. It isn't. A growing economy needs a growing money supply and vice versa. |
I never said adding more money to an economy was "good" or "bad" when I quoted pkc. All I said was that adding more money to the economy then there was prior to the addition will devalue the money that was already in the economy. Whether I think this is "good" or "bad" is irrelevant. You continue to insist on attacking what you believe is my opinion on whether this should be done or not instead of discussing the point that I made.
And another thing I'd like to point out is your complete disregard for definitions of words. You make it seem like using words loosely in a debate such as this doesn't matter, when it absolutely does. If we can't agree on the definition of something (let us say inflation or deflation) then the debate can't go any further until that is understood. But this is why these types of conversations go off the deep end with yourself and pkc because, for some reason, the two of you don't think understanding the words that you use means a damn. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
You just made a critical error. How can printing more money make up for the loss in purchasing power when printing more money does exactly that; creates a loss in purchasing power. |
is it your position that the average (employed) US citizen was financially better off in 1913 than they are now, because their $ unit was worth more?
Is it your position that the financial position of US citizens actually improved during the great depression, when their $ unit increased in purchasing power due to massive deflation?
Is it your position that the average US citizen's financial position has gotten worse every day since 1913, in line with the stupid graphs posted by iStupid re purchasing power? |
|
|
|
|
