patrick.net

david1 says

'm not arguing that inflation doesn't exist. I have argued that money supply does not affect inflation due to liquidity traps.

david1, you are Keynesian. So you obviously don't know that the definition of Inflation - the classic definition of inflation - before Keynes produced fairy tale nonsense convinient for the governments - is "the supply of money".

2. By CPI I am referencing the US Bureau of Labor and Statistic - not some global or other government entities. If you want to go there, fine, but for now let's stick to the US CPI. For if you do - it's very easy to show that socialist bureaus always behave the same - they are handed down the inflation target, and produce, align, make up, and twist data to arrive to that target.

3. Banksters are a global lead conspiracy. If you recall, there were few clans represented in 1910s at that meeting in Jeckyl island - and these few families controlled about 25% of World Wealth - the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Kuhns, the Rotschields...

They agreed, then hired a Harvard professor to write the Federal Reserve Act, then shoved it through Congress when most of Congressmen were on vacation.

4.
david1 says

Bottom line, in order for the models in which I believe the world macroeconomy to function do not require a massive global bankster lead conspiracy of money supply manipulation coupled with manipulation of the inflation measures. These models have decades of empirical data backing them with few empirical contradictions.

I read this gibberish several times and still don't know which "empiricical data" that is supposedly backing something with few "empirical" contradictions.

I think you are pumping hot air.

> david1
You are emotionally invested, I understand.

To mock successfully, however, you also need wit. You may be falling short in that department.

Tell me again about your $180 cross-country flight. What airline, what origin/destination? one way or both ways? How many stops? What was the total, with taxes and fees? Did you get fed in flight? Was the food free, or did you have to pay for it? Where you comfortable, enough leg room? How long in advance did you have to come to the airport? How was your experience with TSA? Did you pay for luggage?

I remember air travel in 1995. In my experience it was significantly (!) cheaper, relative to salaries and all factors considered. Not to mention infinitely more convenient, particularly short distances.

david1 says

That you say you could but do not shows laziness.

It shows benefit of the doubt. At first, I'd try to avoid making obvious remarks.

Before I part with the benefit of the doubt in your regard. Here is a simple common sense riddle: what factors may influence preferred shopping habits for a consumer and, consequently, affect price of his basket?

lenar says

Before I part with the benefit of the doubt in your regard. Here is a simple common sense riddle: what factors may influence preferred shopping habits for a consumer and, consequently, affect price of his basket?

You haven't answered any of my questions, I refuse to answer yours.

Why would it be manipulated? Why does everyone track inflation with a similar model? How is it manipulated?

AlexS says

I read this gibberish several times and still don't know which "empiricical data" that is supposedly backing something with few "empirical" contradictions.

I think you are pumping hot air.

Philips Curve.

Chart of Money Supply vs. Inflation. Where is the historical correlation?

rootvg says

The Obama administration is over. For it not to be, everything we know about Political Science and modern American politics would have to go out the window. That just doesn't happen.

Huh?

david1 says

lenar says

Before I part with the benefit of the doubt in your regard. Here is a simple common sense riddle: what factors may influence preferred shopping habits for a consumer and, consequently, affect price of his basket?

You haven't answered any of my questions, I refuse to answer yours.

Actually, I did. You either pretend to not understand, or my condolences to your loved ones.
Of course you refuse.

david1 says

Chart of Money Supply vs. Inflation. Where is the historical correlation?

person a: CPI is a poor measure of inflation. It's based on shopping patterns; those change due to economical conditions. It contradicts experience of an average person who switch from steaks to hamburgers. It also contradicts Money Supply charts.
person b: There is no correlation between chart of Money Supply and inflation.
person a: inflation as defined how?
person b: By CPI, of course!

david1, you are the person b in this conversation.

And it's Phillips Curve. And Phillips Curve tracks relationship between unemployment and inflation, not money supply (at least not directly).

Isn't everyone laughing at Phillips Curve - ever since we had both high unemployment and high inflation in Carter years?

To return to the thesis of the thread, some quotes from Barry Goldwater:

"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."
(in a 1994 Washington Post essay)
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,"
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
"A woman has a right to an abortion."

I could get behind a Goldwater conservative. However these days any GOPer saying these things would be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

Vicente says

I could get behind a Goldwater conservative

And he was a nutter.

This is how it has really gone...
Argument A:
lenar says

person a: CPI is a poor measure of inflation. It's based on shopping patterns; those change due to economical conditions. It contradicts experience of an average person who switch from steaks to hamburgers. It also contradicts Money Supply charts.

Person B: I reject your theses. Hamburgers are not substituted for steaks. They are different. Flank steak may be substituted for filet Mignon if Filet Mignon rises in price to quickly. If flank steak rises faster than Filet Mignon, Filet will be substituted for flank steak. Substitution goes both ways.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiqa.htm

Person A: (to himself: I have no explanation for this, so I will issue an ad hominem attack. But, I will make it a thinly veiled "witty" ad hominem attack so it wont be so obvious that I have no argument). To person B: I am showing restraint. You may lack wit. My condolences to your family.

Argument B: (Similar content but different argument course)

lenar says

person b: There is no correlation between chart of Money Supply and inflation.

Person A: this is in response to AlexS who asked for empirical data verifying the macroeconomic model I support. He also asked for an empirical contradiction, which I gave as the Phillips Curve.

Post Keynesians have no problem with Stagflation, as they show that it was caused by Supply fluctuations independent of demand. Stagflation of the 70s was caused by Nixon's price controls and OPEC price controls. Wait, where did I see price controls as another explanation for inflation???? Oh yeah, I said it in my first response to AlexS in this thread: what causes inflation - artificial price controls and demand fluctuations, not money supply.

Considering your breakdown of the conversation only included person a and person b, but there was clearly a person C in the conversation (AlexS) this little breakdown is a joke. Its how you operate, it seems.

Ad Hominem, Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem, Ignore Question, Straw Man, Ad Hominem.

Nice argument style. Are you going to respond to your premise being rejected or not? I have provided a link explaining the contradiction to your hamburger argument. What is your support? Will you respond? Probably not. Based on the pattern above, I expect an Ad hominem, followed by a straw man and finally ignoring the question.

You can't read.

I've said that relationship steaks vs. hamburgers in CPI changed over years in favor of hamburgers. I never said anything about rules of substitution in defining CPI. Those are two orthogonal concepts - popular/unpopular products and their respective weights vs. similar products that may be substituted.

You never addressed this observation. Instead, you chose to attack my imaginary critique of rules of substitution. That critique - it's not real, it's in your head.

Either you can't read, or you shouldn't be talking about straw man.

In either case, I respectfully decline your invitation to join your hallucination.

lenar says

You can't read.

And the winner is: Ad Hominem!

I did address the observation: I granted that the CPI is not a measure of constant utility. Then I asked how this relationship change has Manipulated the CPI. Then I asked why it would be manipulated globally. You declined to address these questions.

Who can't read? Why and how are clearly addressed. I gave examples of questioning your premise of tanking quality of life. You threatened to answer but did not. The relationship has changed with computers and smartphones too, is that a decrease in the quality of life? Families have two cars now, it that a decrease? What about central HVAC? Is that a decrease? Long distance telephone? Email? Facebook? I could go on....

And by the way, I would love to see the relative change in ground beef purchased compared to steaks over the past 30 years or so. If that is your argument back it up with data. I have my doubts...Americans generally seek more utility than their parents: more cars, more vacations, larger houses, 300 channels, etc. I have my doubts they would accept less utility when it comes to beef...

To summarize: 1. I addressed your relationship change with doubt; 2. I gave examples of this doubt pointing to several areas where it appears quality of life has increased (the relationship has changed in a manner that indicates improved quality of life); 3. I Asked you for a clarification or perhaps data showing the "tanking quality of life" and 4. I refrained from following you in your ad hominem attack style as you wanted, frustrating you to the point where your only choice was to continue with the ad hominem attacks hoping I would go away.

I'm not going away.

You haven't talked about my momma yet so I guess that's still in the bag. I'll set it up for you - she is about 5'7" 160 lbs.

david1 says

To summarize: 1. I addressed your relationship change with doubt;

david1 says

You haven't talked about my momma yet so I guess that's still in the bag. I'll set it up for you - she is about 5'7" 160 lbs.

First you talk about my relationship changes. Then about your momma. Thanks for the honors, but this is too close for my comfort - I'm happily involved.

FYI. Your understanding of oh-so-frequently-used-term Ad Hominem approximates your understanding of inflation.

FYI. Statement above is not an example of Ad Hominem.