Previous  1  2  3

Up until you posted the part that contradicted what Lemmy said rather than your typical babble.

   

Okay, so when you drive to the grocery store for broccoli, you're not actually driving to the store for broccoli. You're trying to pollute the planet because you can't get your broccoli without some exhaust, so you're begging for pollution. In fact, because you're begging for a certain amount pollution (not getting the broccoli), you may actually decide to park your car a block away from the grocery store when you hit your emissions limit because, remember, it isn't really about getting broccoli, it's about BEGGING for the right amount of pollution.

   

My usual babble was what contradicted Lemmy in the first place. The link I gave later just backed that up. It what was in that link was news to you, you really shouldn't mix in these conversations.

   

OK, OK, I give. You're doing a Caleb here and quibbling about terminology that everybody else understands except you. You're absolutely right, we don't want inflation, we want growth. Everybody but you puts that in terms of increasing inflation, but what the fark, we'll go with your way.

Next up you'll argue we don't need growth. Well, I'd like to see a well laid out argument for that position, that we don't need growth in a capitalistic economy, or any economy if the population is increasing. It'd love to believe in a steady state economy, or even a shrinking one, because it would do good for the planet. Can't see it myself tho.

   

Everyone who's an economist puts it in terms as I've described. I've never seen anyone anywhere express a desire for inflation as such, instead of a desire to stimulate growth within the bounds of an inflationary target. We may have target rates for inflation, but the GOAL is NEVER inflation.


I'd like to have the time to provide that argument. It's been on my to-do list since you first asked for it a couple of weeks ago. Patience, Grasshopper.

   

Generally, when someone has an issue across multiple threads with multiple topics and multiple people (since you've used this line on me, I'll include myself in it), the issue is not with the people correcting the terminology, but with the one misusing it in the first place. Nor should you be taking it so personally, andy; those corrections facilitate understanding. Every time Caleb or Lemmy has put forth a correction in terminology it's helped me understand the issue, rather than detract from it. OTI and Sandorski were both able to engage with this topic without running into the issue you have, so I'm inclined to believe that this isn't an issue with Lemmy or his interpretation of how inflation in viewed by economists. I'm not finding it particularly hard to engage here either.

Also, it doesn't help that even the article in this thread doesn't put inflation that way, but does match with what Lemmy describes more closely than your interpretation. Close to the end, you can see this most clearly; someone even talks about how they feel inflation could be allowed to rise higher, because they hope the amount of growth from fiscal spending and quantitative easing would be high enough to offset the harms of that rate of inflation. When even the article cited has repeated references to the harms of high inflation, you have to give it to Lemmy that it is harmful, and that any increases of inflation must be being discussed in the contexts he describes, as an offshoot of growth.

What that article supports is pushing the rate of acceptable harms higher in the hopes of gaining some growth out of these policies that aren't currently showing great success. "This plan hasn't worked; maybe we're cutting off our efforts too early to avoid the harms and aren't getting any benefits as a result." It's not being put in terms of "increasing inflation," it's gambling a plan that allows for more will do better, and hopefully not garner a significant amount (or any) of inflation above our current 2.2% limit while doing so. It's a belief that our efforts to keep inflation down to an acceptable level stops programs too short, and we might gain something by allowing more of a harm like inflation and let more of a stimulus plan run it's course. Even a cursory reading for me mirrors what Lemmy is describing, at least to me.

The major arguments I've periodically heard for using inflation aren't even really well laid out in the article. They're two fold; the first is that it makes debt cheaper (which Lemmy already laid out), and cheapen the currency enough to stop some pegging their currencies so easily (which has questionable real term value). It's why the only time I really hear about economists allowing for higher inflation is in the hopes that stimulus will outweigh that inflation, and due to those limited benefits, only really talk about things like quantitative easing after serious recessions or in the face of persistent deflation, when the harms of inflation are at least possibly somewhat reduced in the method Lemmy already described. Central banks pegged inflation for a reason; indeed, if we are going to go off on a tangent on unemployment, the US Fed, Canada's Central Bank, and others pegged inflation in part because of the discovery of the Phillips curve and it's eventual issues (especially in the long run, where the relationship between inflation and low unemployment broke down entirely). Pegging inflation allows for policy security on matters like unemployment, with more knowledge and surety when pursuing monetary and fiscal policy.

Just my opinion, hopefully my interpretations are correct and I've not misrepresented a position here.

   

tl;dr =

If what we're doing isn't working then maybe if we do more of it harder and faster then maybe it might work.

With some people it simply never occurs to them that maybe they're doing the wrong thing.

For instance:

People down here bitch about what to do about Canadian geese crapping on their very lush lawns that are so very appealing to Canadian geese. They run sprinklers, they get dogs to go after the geese, they spray foul tasting things on the grass to dissuade the geese, and etc.

I got rid of my lawn.

   

And your usual babble is just that, babble. Nothing of substance.

Congratulations, you finally posted something of credibility and you still act like a complete asshole.

   

MY babble was exactly about what you call something of credibility, that latter was just backing it up with a link. As I said, if you need a link to tell you that job quality has been declining in Canada, you really shouldn't join the conversation.

   

You rarely post anything remotely close to credible so it was nice to see you actually post something to back it up and you still act like an asshole when I come to your defence.

Perhaps if you were less of a troll and more forthcoming about your own experience, you'd be seen as a little more credible when you make a post.

You often join conversations that are way out of your league. I'll ensure to bring up this topic when you wander past your knowledge barrier which will likely happen tomorrow.

   

Previous  1  2  3