Unironically, it is. No other political framework actively suggest loving, caring for and helping the anonymous fellow. Conservatism is almost always exacerbated individualism. They band together because they hate the same thing, not because they love each other.
Is there a middle ground between individualism and communitarianism? I am looking for perspectives in earnest (i.e., this isn’t a “gotcha” question). I agree that “rugged individualism” ends up trampling people.
Social democracy, maybe. At least they acknowledge social justice as a core political value. Plenty of socialism political stances are emphatic about social justice without going full on accelerationist authoritarian communism.
Basing the collective mentality and the legal framework upon ubiquitous and mutual sovereignty. That is, an individual is sovereign, an organization is sovereign, etc - and thus, none have rights over another, except as agreed to by ongoing mutual agreement. Anyone can withdraw, and no other has the right to deny that. Disputes are resolved through finding the path of least incursion.
Implicit in this is the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, that abortion is a right, that forcing medical choices (including vaccination) has no moral standing, that one can arm oneself, and one can also, by contract, participate in a community which disarms itself. Government bodies are ultimately services, in this model, which people, at some point, contractually agree to - or don’t.
The right to withdraw is a necessary one, as any contract one cannot deny or reject when one wants to is, at its root, compulsion or slavery.
Your economic framework has nothing to do with social policy and vice versa. Russia was a socialist national and they let Ukraine starve to get rid of dissidents. Norway is a capitalist country with very strong social welfare programs. The two are not related whatsoever.
Socialism as an economic model is not based on empathy at all, but rather where power lies. Capitalism is not opposed to government social programs and in fact only flourishes when government can mitigate externalities.
OPs view is simplistic and OP does not seem to understand the difference between socialism and social programs.
Your Bible also says something along the lines of “chop off your hands if you jerk off.” There’s so much shit in Leviticus I could pull up which aren’t exactly “loving.”
Edit:
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”
Worsening standard of living as a result of 40 years of cuts to social services as neoliberal economic policy seeks to manage the contradictions of capitalism in the u.s. Basically the u.s. deindustrialized itself at the hands of monopoly capitalists which savaged the working class.
Americans make way more than Canadians do, they’re goods and services cost less than Canadians pay, Americans have a higher quality of life on average than Canadians, and yet Americans struggle the most out of all Western nations in feeding their children. Something isn’t right.
because all the things you mentioned come with a lot of asterisks and the abuse of the averages.
for example, a lot of the common “quality of life index” that you will find America rank highly on include things like “property price to income ratio” meaning that if you take the average income and compare it to the vast very cheap no-mans land, you end up with a way better ratio than other nations, or stuff like “climate index” that put Canada lower on the quality of life because northern Canada is cold, etc…
Tho you are wrong about the cost of living, Canada has a lower cost of living than America
Don’t forget that Americans have to pay a lot out of pocket and for more than the cannucks to the north
High dependence on the government that prints so much money for dumb social programs that end up making the rich richer and poor poorer through inflation through the cantillon effect, since the rich own much more assets than cash.
Just wait until some dumb government implements UBI and see how inflation will become. All this inflation we’re seeing now is due to 3 stimmy checks from 2020. Imagine what happens when you do it monthly for a year.
Money is just paper, but it represents real stuff. No matter how much you steal from hard-working people, eventually you’ll pay the price.
The inflation we’re currently seeing is largely caused by supply being savaged by Covid and not having fully recovered yet. Demand hasn’t really grown compared to pre-Covid, which if the issue was those “stimmy checks” wouldn’t be the case.
Proving you’re wrong is easy. On one hand sure, supply chains has an effect, but it’s not in the way you’re thinking. To prove you’re wrong, you can see the spike in demand after stimmy checks where given. This is what made economists describe the situation as the “bullwhip effect”:
which was guessed because the stimmy checks is the “free money” that increased demand uncontrollably, which led to inflation. I remember seeing the spike in demand in Target financial reports after stimmy checks arrived. These chains had an unexpected spike in demand and revenue in these times. If it’s supply chains like you’re saying, this wouldn’t have been the case.
The bullwhip effect refers to perceived demand, not actual demand. And if perceived demand is larger, suppliers would act to increase supply, which suppresses inflation, not causes it.
Instead we saw supply shortages well before any stimulus checks were passed, and we saw further supply shortages after demand for oil for example absolutely cratered. The impact of this on various supply chains is still being felt everywhere.
It’s also dead-simple to prove that demand hasn’t suddenly spiked due to stimulus checks, because if you look at a graph of US household savings, you’ll notice those jump up at a couple points, and those jumps happen to be roughly equal to the size of the total stimulus package. Which very strongly suggests Americans used the stimulus checks to pay off built up debts and to put the rest into savings. These graphs are available online, feel free to Google it.
Furthermore, inflation was at its peak well after the stimulus checks had ended. This was due to a normalization of demand to pre-covid levels, whereas supply still needs time to go to those levels.
Savings going up and demand going up are not mutually exclusive. Your assumption is simply wrong.
Of course inflation will have a delayed effect. Did you expect this to happen overnight? What logic says that you give stimmy checks and you see the result overnight in a multi trillion dollar economy?!
You literally argued that demand spiked after the stimulus checks and therefore caused inflation? And now you’re arguing “oh this demand spike didn’t have an effect at the time but it does have one after a year of no more stimulus”?
Make up your mind. Either stimulus directly impacted demand so severely that it causes severe inflation, or the “demand spike” you asserted with nothing but anecdotal evidence did not cause inflation but is somehow now causing prolonged inflation. Instead of, you know, the vastly more likely and by experts agreed upon cause of covid-induced damage to supply chains. Which also conveniently explains supply shortages and why demand is barely at pre-covid levels.
But I’m sure your misinterpretation of various economic terms is the more likely cause.
There are tons of economic factors that have delayed effects, especially like money printing. Read about the cantillon effect. Inflation takes time to trickle into the economy.
If it is just down to the stimmy checks - as you keep repeating - why is inflation high across the world, including countries that did not issue checks to individuals?
inflation has nothing to do with stimulus checks, nor with money paid to poorer people.
but since you literally quoted taxes as theft, economics has never been the strong suite of libertarians.
“inflation has nothing to do with stimulus checks”.
This is the stupidest thing I heard today. I heard other things that are wrong, but on stupidity, this is at the top. No offense.
This is like saying “money printing has nothing to do with inflation”. Maybe think a little and try to relate money printing and inflation. There’s an argument even that stimmy checks are the worst contributer to inflation due to its direct access to everyday economy, and doesn’t just live in bank accounts collecting interest.
Or are you gonna tell me that money printing isn’t related to inflation?
Libertarians generally don’t understand Fiat Currency, mainly because it requires some form of societal trust.
And Libertarians can’t trust anyone.
Or are you gonna tell me that money printing isn’t related to inflation?
the evidence supports the claim that an increased monetary supply really doesn’t increase inflation, but that isn’t in the story book you base your economic understanding on, just in the peer reviewed Financial Analyst Journal published by the CFA for example.
Libertarians generally don’t understand Fiat Currency
I assure you I understand it more than you think. But besides that, I love how you dodged the point and didn’t really tell me what really “causes” inflation. Because of course if you print money and put it in a vault, that won’t cause inflation. This is the opposite of what I’m saying. Money printing entails making it trickle to the economy. Wanna go all academic on that? I’m all ears. But don’t bullshit a bullshitter.
Let’s never forget the great victory of the fed, who reeeeeeally understand inflation (as opposed to us, plebs)… saying that inflation will be “transitory” for a year in 2020/2021 (Jerome Powell, that Janet Yellen, and all those geniuses), while plebs like me said FUCK NO, it’s gonna be all over us for a long time… and guess who’s right? It’s not your PhDs in the fed. It’s us, those who “generally don’t understand fiat currency”, because they slap the truth in your faces without sugar-coating it.
Except that I explained the mechanism, and you did nothing but say “I’m wrong”, just because you don’t like how it works or how it makes you feel wrong and stupid.
your previous arguments don’t indicate as such, but sure thing, Mr. Kruger
tell me what really “causes” inflation.
the natural accumulation of wealth, along with a number of diverse market mechanisms, primarily on the push side of economics, for example the increase in the price of energy makes everything more expensive, because everything needs energy to be produced/shipped, thus pushing inflation.
what ever the last paragraph was supposed to be, you realize we are back down to 3%~?
and why should I not be condescending to someone talking out of his ass? are you going to stop spewing on about a topic you have no clue about just because you watched some YouTube cartoon and maybe read Atlas Shrugged? imagine if I went up to a farmer telling him about how he just needs to cast some magic because I read Harry Potter, would I not be an ass? so why should I treat you any different from an ass? didn’t spend 3 years of my life learning this stuff to not talk down to someone, telling me to cast rain magic if it’s too dry.
your previous arguments don’t indicate as such, but sure thing, Mr. Kruger
Alright, Mr. Dunning. Ditto. Very productive.
what ever the last paragraph was supposed to be, you realize we are back down to 3%~?
Great job! I guess prices will fall back to where they were 3 years ago… no wait, they won’t, right? I mean, after all this inflation RATE being high, the prices will remain high, and will still increase after this spike, and we’re kissing Jerome Powell’s balls not to hike federal fund rates higher because the economy is so subtle that things can… break? Like we “never seen before”? https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/bank-england-buy-long-dated-bonds-suspends-gilt-sales-2022-09-28/
I mean, back then with Paul Volcker in the 70s we did like 20% rate hike… and now we can’t even go to 6% without destroying the whole world’s economy.
But hey everyone… don’t worry! we’re back at ~3%!!!
Government debt is at 33 Trillion, and the government is struggling to pay the interest of that debt, leave alone the debt itself…
But hey everyone… don’t worry! we’re back at ~3%!!!
and why should I not be condescending to someone talking out of his ass?
I believe at this point I’ve shown who’s talking out of their ass and using unilateral self-constructed imaginations to justify economic history that can be summarized with “everything politicians are doing is perfect, and greeeeeeeeeed is why I’m miserable”. Excuse me that I don’t give to shits what you think. You have no idea what you’re saying when you think that “3%” means that “everything is OK”. You will remain miserable, and I will laugh more seeing you miserable, because you deserve it, 100%. Every bit of it. You chose those who did it. Enjoy!
tell me you don’t know how economics work, without telling me you don’t know how economics work:
I guess prices will fall back to where they were 3 years ago… no wait, they won’t, right?
we will never see any meaningful deflation, since that’s about as dangerous as Venezuela style runaway inflation. it literally freezes markets, causes massive layoffs that make the covid era look humane, and stops all investment.
3% is a healthy annual level of inflation for any developed economy.
I mean, back then with Paul Volcker in the 70s we did like 20% rate hike… and now we can’t even go to 6% without destroying the whole world’s economy.
the 20% was for a span of a few months during an era of rampant inflation in America because the dollar was overvalued after WW2 and the late 60s-70s saw it come to its actual market value after being artificially driven up by the new industrial demand for gold and the “gold standard” (something I find funny is that Libertarians rave about the gold standard but, then ignore the fact that they just abstract the fiat to the metal, and then tie the value of the money to the new fiat currency), and all of this during a global financial crisis… but that wasn’t covered in the fun libertarian cartoon you watched eh?
Government debt is at 33 Trillion, and the government is struggling to pay the interest of that debt, leave alone the debt itself…
meaningless, completely and utterly meaningless, as long as the government continues to pay the extremely low interest rates on that debt it is a safe way (for overwhelmingly Americans btw) to safely store assets long term, but like all libertarians you will ignore how state financing works because you believe we should live in a world ruled by the free market or some shit like that.
and lastly, your entire post has shown a staggering lack of even any fundamental economic history outside a few fun facts you might find on the bottom of libertarian Snapple caps, this is how economics works, I recommend you look into some macroeconomics.
Every one of these countries has its problems. This idea that “the grass is greener on the other side” is ridiculous. You like Norway, go to Norway. Easy.
ya, but most European nations are a better place to live than the USA, and ironically many Americans stationed there from the military chose to stay there after their contracts are up
you are repeating old news, but besides that, don’t pretend like you are inherently affected by inflation, you don’t have millions in different monetary funds, the only real problem you have with inflation is that for the longest time Americans refused to actually increase wages to match, scared of costing the billionaire class an extra penny.
What does that even mean? I’m right. Old news or not, I don’t give a shit. Let’s start by acknowledging that I’m right, then call it whatever the fuck you want. I know it’s hard, but the truth is the truth.
If I were you, I would blame the morons who caused the inflation, not the companies who are producing things and have to deal with it.
don’t pretend like you are inherently affected by inflation, you don’t have millions in different monetary funds
I assure you I’m benefiting from inflation, and everything I’m saying here is because I’m a compassionate human trying to make a bunch of brainwashed communist morons understand that governments are not their friend, but their corrupt servant that doesn’t give two shits about them as long as their collecting more votes.
I assure you I’m benefiting from inflation, and everything I’m saying here is because I’m a compassionate human trying to make a bunch of brainwashed communist morons
Taxation also can lead to inflation if paid to people who spend it immediately. The problem relates to how the money moves in the economy. It’s a complicated matter. Some think it’s the “velocity of money”, that alone isn’t enough though as we saw in recent years. To maintain inflationary rate (of 2%, as required) you need to have a stable velocity in all sectors of the economy. But who knows how it works in reality.
And if everyone had a relatively comparable amount of assets under their control? If each person could control a certain amount of stock in the stock market or rights to property? As you became more wealthy in assets, the taxes become higher, while when you become less wealthy in assets, you receive more appropriated assets. The same amount of assets would exist in the economy, realized or unrealized, and if the appropriation equation is tuned well enough, it could provide income for people who can’t work, who might exchange all their assets for cash every time they get them, and limit the accumulation of assets for the very wealthy. There would still be the haves and have nots, but the have nots would have an effective floor, and the haves an effective ceiling.
The government would not make decisions on how the assets are used, only provide the means to even out how the assets are divided. People who work and earn enough to live on that income would be able to accumulate assets in the form of the stocks or property. They would earn assets up until the agreed upon point at which assets are taxed more than the average growth of the economy. This point would be at least enough for an average person to live comfortably and not have to work for a few decades until their assets ran out. Think in the 5 to 15 of million dollar ranges.
The assets would appreciate if profitable, like stocks owned by current stock holders, or depreciate if not. Most people would hire someone to manage their assets for a fee. That person would likely manage many people’s assets in the way requested of them. The safe investor would see their client’s assets grow with the economy, but some investors might value other things.
A person could instruct their investor to manage their assets at an agreed upon slow rate of growth, or even a loss. They might do this to spend on stocks that are less profitable, but are something the person cares about. A person might do this if they enjoy their work and have no plans of retirement unless forced to. They would keep enough assets to retire for a shorter period of time, or for use in the case of emergencies. This would allow people to fund some risky projects that could pay out massively, but keep themselves safe enough to not risk too much.
Other side effects include reducing opulent spending. You could have a huge mansion, but you couldn’t have as much in retirement savings. You could have all of your assets be boats, planes, and apartments for personal use, but you’d have to sacrifice to spend any time off work. The most expensive of properties couldn’t be owned full time by a single person, they’d have to be owned by multiple people and shared amongst themselves.
People who have huge businesses under their sole or family ownership would need to bring in outside investors. Large privately traded companies would have to be completely reworked, and would likely stop existing beyond a certain size. CEOs who own most of a large company would stop existing. Many other effects I’m sure I haven’t thought of.
This idea needs more work, and there’s a good chance constitutions would need to be amended to enable it, but it would solve the problem of the ridiculously wealthy having so much sway on the economy, and provide a social safety net. It would bring power to the hands of the people and democratize the economy, while not having the inefficiencies of planned economies.
While there is a lot wrong here, just factually, this part
All this inflation we’re seeing now is due to 3 stimmy checks from 2020
Is easily proven false because inflation is worldwide, the US is handling it better than most, and there were a wide variety of actions taken that did not include stimulus worldwide.
The USD is the world reserve currency. Inflation in the US affects all currencies because most debt is denominated in USD. You guys are seriously undereducated on the matter it’s pathetic.
Yes… we printed like 60% of the money supply, flooded the system with cash, created a tremendous bull market in stocks and all risk-on assets, and we expect it not to affect inflation. That’s what you’re trying to say. That’s sane, right?
You wish… not only we printed all that money, but we also handed cash to people to spend it in the economy, which created a spike in demand. But no… that has nothing to do with inflation. That’s INSANE!
Wait, am I hearing that stimmy DID affect inflation? lol! I’m happy you’re conceding at least.
Whether it’s third or half, doesn’t really matter. You can calibrate your factors depending on your model to get many different results and the truth will never be known, because all models and wrong and some models are useful. The point here is: I’m right, and stimmy checks caused inflation like you just admitted. Period. Stop arguing over nothing! And stop making straw mans to facilitate attacks on my point like you did two comments ago. Grow up!
I’m not conceding shit lol. You made up like half the shit you claim, and you don’t understand any of the underlying issues at play.
You came in here acting like a dick, and people treated you like what you are - and underinformed person who is aggressive about a position they cannot defend.
I didn’t make up any straw men. If you’re upset with how people respond to you, consider not insulting everyone right from the jump
As I said above
So you’re saying that the sole cause of inflation worldwide is the COVID stimulus checks? Or even that this is the primary driver?
This is an insane claim.
And I was asking for clarity about this
All this inflation we’re seeing now is due to 3 stimmy checks from 2020
All the ‘inflation’ you see is from simultaneous pure greed on part of corporations and would have eased by now. They saw the pandemic as a nice permanent excuse.
Why do Americans have such a hard time feeding their kids?
Because empathy is socialism apparently.
Unironically, it is. No other political framework actively suggest loving, caring for and helping the anonymous fellow. Conservatism is almost always exacerbated individualism. They band together because they hate the same thing, not because they love each other.
Socialism is an economic model, not a political framework. You’re being lied to when you’re told government programs are socialism.
You might want to read what you replied to again.
Is there a middle ground between individualism and communitarianism? I am looking for perspectives in earnest (i.e., this isn’t a “gotcha” question). I agree that “rugged individualism” ends up trampling people.
Social democracy, maybe. At least they acknowledge social justice as a core political value. Plenty of socialism political stances are emphatic about social justice without going full on accelerationist authoritarian communism.
Thanks.
Basing the collective mentality and the legal framework upon ubiquitous and mutual sovereignty. That is, an individual is sovereign, an organization is sovereign, etc - and thus, none have rights over another, except as agreed to by ongoing mutual agreement. Anyone can withdraw, and no other has the right to deny that. Disputes are resolved through finding the path of least incursion.
Implicit in this is the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, that abortion is a right, that forcing medical choices (including vaccination) has no moral standing, that one can arm oneself, and one can also, by contract, participate in a community which disarms itself. Government bodies are ultimately services, in this model, which people, at some point, contractually agree to - or don’t.
The right to withdraw is a necessary one, as any contract one cannot deny or reject when one wants to is, at its root, compulsion or slavery.
That seems an overly simplistic a view point to me
You are free to refute it.
Sure I’ll bite.
Your economic framework has nothing to do with social policy and vice versa. Russia was a socialist national and they let Ukraine starve to get rid of dissidents. Norway is a capitalist country with very strong social welfare programs. The two are not related whatsoever.
Socialism as an economic model is not based on empathy at all, but rather where power lies. Capitalism is not opposed to government social programs and in fact only flourishes when government can mitigate externalities.
OPs view is simplistic and OP does not seem to understand the difference between socialism and social programs.
What? Levant, 2000 years ago, Bible “1 John 3:17”
They even number each sentence in the book to make it easy to find.
Your Bible also says something along the lines of “chop off your hands if you jerk off.” There’s so much shit in Leviticus I could pull up which aren’t exactly “loving.”
Edit: Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”
From: https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/slavery/
Apparently it didn’t do the job, as the Jesus fandom in the US are literally the ones killing social services.
Worsening standard of living as a result of 40 years of cuts to social services as neoliberal economic policy seeks to manage the contradictions of capitalism in the u.s. Basically the u.s. deindustrialized itself at the hands of monopoly capitalists which savaged the working class.
Tl;Dr class war
Americans make way more than Canadians do, they’re goods and services cost less than Canadians pay, Americans have a higher quality of life on average than Canadians, and yet Americans struggle the most out of all Western nations in feeding their children. Something isn’t right.
because all the things you mentioned come with a lot of asterisks and the abuse of the averages.
for example, a lot of the common “quality of life index” that you will find America rank highly on include things like “property price to income ratio” meaning that if you take the average income and compare it to the vast very cheap no-mans land, you end up with a way better ratio than other nations, or stuff like “climate index” that put Canada lower on the quality of life because northern Canada is cold, etc…
Tho you are wrong about the cost of living, Canada has a lower cost of living than America
Don’t forget that Americans have to pay a lot out of pocket and for more than the cannucks to the north
Because they elect Republicans which are the Nazi party
It’s not that we can’t feed our children, it’s that we don’t want to. Jesus loves you* so that the government doesn’t have to.
*Offer not valid for gays, nonwhites, trans people, women, non-Christians, or kids who talk back.
Rich people > children
Ahh yes rich people eat children
High dependence on the government that prints so much money for dumb social programs that end up making the rich richer and poor poorer through inflation through the cantillon effect, since the rich own much more assets than cash.
Just wait until some dumb government implements UBI and see how inflation will become. All this inflation we’re seeing now is due to 3 stimmy checks from 2020. Imagine what happens when you do it monthly for a year.
Money is just paper, but it represents real stuff. No matter how much you steal from hard-working people, eventually you’ll pay the price.
The inflation we’re currently seeing is largely caused by supply being savaged by Covid and not having fully recovered yet. Demand hasn’t really grown compared to pre-Covid, which if the issue was those “stimmy checks” wouldn’t be the case.
Proving you’re wrong is easy. On one hand sure, supply chains has an effect, but it’s not in the way you’re thinking. To prove you’re wrong, you can see the spike in demand after stimmy checks where given. This is what made economists describe the situation as the “bullwhip effect”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect
which was guessed because the stimmy checks is the “free money” that increased demand uncontrollably, which led to inflation. I remember seeing the spike in demand in Target financial reports after stimmy checks arrived. These chains had an unexpected spike in demand and revenue in these times. If it’s supply chains like you’re saying, this wouldn’t have been the case.
The bullwhip effect refers to perceived demand, not actual demand. And if perceived demand is larger, suppliers would act to increase supply, which suppresses inflation, not causes it.
Instead we saw supply shortages well before any stimulus checks were passed, and we saw further supply shortages after demand for oil for example absolutely cratered. The impact of this on various supply chains is still being felt everywhere.
It’s also dead-simple to prove that demand hasn’t suddenly spiked due to stimulus checks, because if you look at a graph of US household savings, you’ll notice those jump up at a couple points, and those jumps happen to be roughly equal to the size of the total stimulus package. Which very strongly suggests Americans used the stimulus checks to pay off built up debts and to put the rest into savings. These graphs are available online, feel free to Google it.
Furthermore, inflation was at its peak well after the stimulus checks had ended. This was due to a normalization of demand to pre-covid levels, whereas supply still needs time to go to those levels.
Savings going up and demand going up are not mutually exclusive. Your assumption is simply wrong.
Of course inflation will have a delayed effect. Did you expect this to happen overnight? What logic says that you give stimmy checks and you see the result overnight in a multi trillion dollar economy?!
You literally argued that demand spiked after the stimulus checks and therefore caused inflation? And now you’re arguing “oh this demand spike didn’t have an effect at the time but it does have one after a year of no more stimulus”?
Make up your mind. Either stimulus directly impacted demand so severely that it causes severe inflation, or the “demand spike” you asserted with nothing but anecdotal evidence did not cause inflation but is somehow now causing prolonged inflation. Instead of, you know, the vastly more likely and by experts agreed upon cause of covid-induced damage to supply chains. Which also conveniently explains supply shortages and why demand is barely at pre-covid levels.
But I’m sure your misinterpretation of various economic terms is the more likely cause.
Demand spikes, inflation takes time. Don’t act dumb.
There are tons of economic factors that have delayed effects, especially like money printing. Read about the cantillon effect. Inflation takes time to trickle into the economy.
If it is just down to the stimmy checks - as you keep repeating - why is inflation high across the world, including countries that did not issue checks to individuals?
Two reasons:
inflation has nothing to do with stimulus checks, nor with money paid to poorer people. but since you literally quoted taxes as theft, economics has never been the strong suite of libertarians.
“inflation has nothing to do with stimulus checks”.
This is the stupidest thing I heard today. I heard other things that are wrong, but on stupidity, this is at the top. No offense.
This is like saying “money printing has nothing to do with inflation”. Maybe think a little and try to relate money printing and inflation. There’s an argument even that stimmy checks are the worst contributer to inflation due to its direct access to everyday economy, and doesn’t just live in bank accounts collecting interest.
Or are you gonna tell me that money printing isn’t related to inflation?
Libertarians generally don’t understand Fiat Currency, mainly because it requires some form of societal trust.
And Libertarians can’t trust anyone.
the evidence supports the claim that an increased monetary supply really doesn’t increase inflation, but that isn’t in the story book you base your economic understanding on, just in the peer reviewed Financial Analyst Journal published by the CFA for example.
Increased monetary supply is literally one of the largest drivers of inflation. TF you talking about?
I assure you I understand it more than you think. But besides that, I love how you dodged the point and didn’t really tell me what really “causes” inflation. Because of course if you print money and put it in a vault, that won’t cause inflation. This is the opposite of what I’m saying. Money printing entails making it trickle to the economy. Wanna go all academic on that? I’m all ears. But don’t bullshit a bullshitter.
Let’s never forget the great victory of the fed, who reeeeeeally understand inflation (as opposed to us, plebs)… saying that inflation will be “transitory” for a year in 2020/2021 (Jerome Powell, that Janet Yellen, and all those geniuses), while plebs like me said FUCK NO, it’s gonna be all over us for a long time… and guess who’s right? It’s not your PhDs in the fed. It’s us, those who “generally don’t understand fiat currency”, because they slap the truth in your faces without sugar-coating it.
Spare me the condescending bullshit.
Weird that you claim to understand it so well but lack any actual knowledge about the mechanisms.
Except that I explained the mechanism, and you did nothing but say “I’m wrong”, just because you don’t like how it works or how it makes you feel wrong and stupid.
your previous arguments don’t indicate as such, but sure thing, Mr. Kruger
the natural accumulation of wealth, along with a number of diverse market mechanisms, primarily on the push side of economics, for example the increase in the price of energy makes everything more expensive, because everything needs energy to be produced/shipped, thus pushing inflation.
what ever the last paragraph was supposed to be, you realize we are back down to 3%~?
and why should I not be condescending to someone talking out of his ass? are you going to stop spewing on about a topic you have no clue about just because you watched some YouTube cartoon and maybe read Atlas Shrugged? imagine if I went up to a farmer telling him about how he just needs to cast some magic because I read Harry Potter, would I not be an ass? so why should I treat you any different from an ass? didn’t spend 3 years of my life learning this stuff to not talk down to someone, telling me to cast rain magic if it’s too dry.
Alright, Mr. Dunning. Ditto. Very productive.
Great job! I guess prices will fall back to where they were 3 years ago… no wait, they won’t, right? I mean, after all this inflation RATE being high, the prices will remain high, and will still increase after this spike, and we’re kissing Jerome Powell’s balls not to hike federal fund rates higher because the economy is so subtle that things can… break? Like we “never seen before”? https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/bank-england-buy-long-dated-bonds-suspends-gilt-sales-2022-09-28/
I mean, back then with Paul Volcker in the 70s we did like 20% rate hike… and now we can’t even go to 6% without destroying the whole world’s economy.
But hey everyone… don’t worry! we’re back at ~3%!!!
Government debt is at 33 Trillion, and the government is struggling to pay the interest of that debt, leave alone the debt itself…
But hey everyone… don’t worry! we’re back at ~3%!!!
I believe at this point I’ve shown who’s talking out of their ass and using unilateral self-constructed imaginations to justify economic history that can be summarized with “everything politicians are doing is perfect, and greeeeeeeeeed is why I’m miserable”. Excuse me that I don’t give to shits what you think. You have no idea what you’re saying when you think that “3%” means that “everything is OK”. You will remain miserable, and I will laugh more seeing you miserable, because you deserve it, 100%. Every bit of it. You chose those who did it. Enjoy!
tell me you don’t know how economics work, without telling me you don’t know how economics work:
we will never see any meaningful deflation, since that’s about as dangerous as Venezuela style runaway inflation. it literally freezes markets, causes massive layoffs that make the covid era look humane, and stops all investment. 3% is a healthy annual level of inflation for any developed economy.
the 20% was for a span of a few months during an era of rampant inflation in America because the dollar was overvalued after WW2 and the late 60s-70s saw it come to its actual market value after being artificially driven up by the new industrial demand for gold and the “gold standard” (something I find funny is that Libertarians rave about the gold standard but, then ignore the fact that they just abstract the fiat to the metal, and then tie the value of the money to the new fiat currency), and all of this during a global financial crisis… but that wasn’t covered in the fun libertarian cartoon you watched eh?
meaningless, completely and utterly meaningless, as long as the government continues to pay the extremely low interest rates on that debt it is a safe way (for overwhelmingly Americans btw) to safely store assets long term, but like all libertarians you will ignore how state financing works because you believe we should live in a world ruled by the free market or some shit like that.
and lastly, your entire post has shown a staggering lack of even any fundamental economic history outside a few fun facts you might find on the bottom of libertarian Snapple caps, this is how economics works, I recommend you look into some macroeconomics.
You realize the stim cheques were paid for not just printed right?
Like Norway has paid the price for existing the way it has for decades?
deleted by creator
Every one of these countries has its problems. This idea that “the grass is greener on the other side” is ridiculous. You like Norway, go to Norway. Easy.
ya, but most European nations are a better place to live than the USA, and ironically many Americans stationed there from the military chose to stay there after their contracts are up
Not really a better place. Inflation in Germany is sky high. It’s not greener there. I have people also in Sweden who are crying from inflation.
you are repeating old news, but besides that, don’t pretend like you are inherently affected by inflation, you don’t have millions in different monetary funds, the only real problem you have with inflation is that for the longest time Americans refused to actually increase wages to match, scared of costing the billionaire class an extra penny.
What does that even mean? I’m right. Old news or not, I don’t give a shit. Let’s start by acknowledging that I’m right, then call it whatever the fuck you want. I know it’s hard, but the truth is the truth.
If I were you, I would blame the morons who caused the inflation, not the companies who are producing things and have to deal with it.
I assure you I’m benefiting from inflation, and everything I’m saying here is because I’m a compassionate human trying to make a bunch of brainwashed communist morons understand that governments are not their friend, but their corrupt servant that doesn’t give two shits about them as long as their collecting more votes.
Lmao this guy buys gold
I live in Norway you fucking removed.
Good on you. I’ll just leave this here: https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/households-debt-to-income
Norway is demonstrably better at pretty much everything except being obese removed than America.
And Norway has the highest household debt to income ratio in the world.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/households-debt-to-income
I keep saying this: The grass isn’t greener. Stop listening to those who’re trying to brainwash you.
Ah, so maybe the best way would be to tax assets or give them to the people that increase their value?
Taxation also can lead to inflation if paid to people who spend it immediately. The problem relates to how the money moves in the economy. It’s a complicated matter. Some think it’s the “velocity of money”, that alone isn’t enough though as we saw in recent years. To maintain inflationary rate (of 2%, as required) you need to have a stable velocity in all sectors of the economy. But who knows how it works in reality.
And if everyone had a relatively comparable amount of assets under their control? If each person could control a certain amount of stock in the stock market or rights to property? As you became more wealthy in assets, the taxes become higher, while when you become less wealthy in assets, you receive more appropriated assets. The same amount of assets would exist in the economy, realized or unrealized, and if the appropriation equation is tuned well enough, it could provide income for people who can’t work, who might exchange all their assets for cash every time they get them, and limit the accumulation of assets for the very wealthy. There would still be the haves and have nots, but the have nots would have an effective floor, and the haves an effective ceiling.
The government would not make decisions on how the assets are used, only provide the means to even out how the assets are divided. People who work and earn enough to live on that income would be able to accumulate assets in the form of the stocks or property. They would earn assets up until the agreed upon point at which assets are taxed more than the average growth of the economy. This point would be at least enough for an average person to live comfortably and not have to work for a few decades until their assets ran out. Think in the 5 to 15 of million dollar ranges.
The assets would appreciate if profitable, like stocks owned by current stock holders, or depreciate if not. Most people would hire someone to manage their assets for a fee. That person would likely manage many people’s assets in the way requested of them. The safe investor would see their client’s assets grow with the economy, but some investors might value other things.
A person could instruct their investor to manage their assets at an agreed upon slow rate of growth, or even a loss. They might do this to spend on stocks that are less profitable, but are something the person cares about. A person might do this if they enjoy their work and have no plans of retirement unless forced to. They would keep enough assets to retire for a shorter period of time, or for use in the case of emergencies. This would allow people to fund some risky projects that could pay out massively, but keep themselves safe enough to not risk too much.
Other side effects include reducing opulent spending. You could have a huge mansion, but you couldn’t have as much in retirement savings. You could have all of your assets be boats, planes, and apartments for personal use, but you’d have to sacrifice to spend any time off work. The most expensive of properties couldn’t be owned full time by a single person, they’d have to be owned by multiple people and shared amongst themselves.
People who have huge businesses under their sole or family ownership would need to bring in outside investors. Large privately traded companies would have to be completely reworked, and would likely stop existing beyond a certain size. CEOs who own most of a large company would stop existing. Many other effects I’m sure I haven’t thought of.
This idea needs more work, and there’s a good chance constitutions would need to be amended to enable it, but it would solve the problem of the ridiculously wealthy having so much sway on the economy, and provide a social safety net. It would bring power to the hands of the people and democratize the economy, while not having the inefficiencies of planned economies.
While there is a lot wrong here, just factually, this part
Is easily proven false because inflation is worldwide, the US is handling it better than most, and there were a wide variety of actions taken that did not include stimulus worldwide.
The USD is the world reserve currency. Inflation in the US affects all currencies because most debt is denominated in USD. You guys are seriously undereducated on the matter it’s pathetic.
So you’re saying that the sole cause of inflation worldwide is the COVID stimulus checks? Or even that this is the primary driver?
That’s so insane that I need to make sure that’s the point you’re actually making.
How else can you show your fake knowledge without a straw man? I’m not surprised. Let’s follow up with that stupid comment you made.
You do understand that within 1 year of COVID the money supply was multiplied by 3, if not more, right?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
Yes… we printed like 60% of the money supply, flooded the system with cash, created a tremendous bull market in stocks and all risk-on assets, and we expect it not to affect inflation. That’s what you’re trying to say. That’s sane, right?
You wish… not only we printed all that money, but we also handed cash to people to spend it in the economy, which created a spike in demand. But no… that has nothing to do with inflation. That’s INSANE!
Spare me your ignorance. Go read a book.
Lol this has nothing to do with money supply and everything to do with supply chains bro.
This isn’t some hidden knowledge you have. This has been studied and written about.
Per studies, the stimulus did affect inflation, and was the cause of roughly a third of the inflation:
Also stop implying I’m a communist, thanks.
Wait, am I hearing that stimmy DID affect inflation? lol! I’m happy you’re conceding at least.
Whether it’s third or half, doesn’t really matter. You can calibrate your factors depending on your model to get many different results and the truth will never be known, because all models and wrong and some models are useful. The point here is: I’m right, and stimmy checks caused inflation like you just admitted. Period. Stop arguing over nothing! And stop making straw mans to facilitate attacks on my point like you did two comments ago. Grow up!
I’m not conceding shit lol. You made up like half the shit you claim, and you don’t understand any of the underlying issues at play.
You came in here acting like a dick, and people treated you like what you are - and underinformed person who is aggressive about a position they cannot defend.
I didn’t make up any straw men. If you’re upset with how people respond to you, consider not insulting everyone right from the jump
As I said above
This is an insane claim.
And I was asking for clarity about this
Which is provably false
You’re a fucking idiot. More than one thing can be true at once, you fucking moron.
All the ‘inflation’ you see is from simultaneous pure greed on part of corporations and would have eased by now. They saw the pandemic as a nice permanent excuse.
Yes, because as we all know, money printing and government spending doesn’t affect inflation rate.
If this isn’t brainwashing, I don’t know what is. I feel bad for what they’ve done to you.
What they’ve done to you is even worse.
You absolute fucking moron.