The Crypto Warning

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: rounda

You're going to have to try harder than building an argument on things I didn't say.

Real world data disagrees with the printing of money causing inflation? I'm shocked i tell ya, just shocked.

Common sense be damned after all. Well.....usedtobe common sense anyway.

Things you didn't say?

You literally asked if the rise in the price of goods was the only definition....

Here, let me quote what I said, and how you responded:

Me:
Inflation is the measurement of the price of goods.


You:
That it? That the only factor, nothing else......?


Me:
That is the definition on inflation....

To which you proceeded to quote various dictionaries, which confirmed what I said the definition was.

Then you agreed that when the price of goods increases, its the same thing as purchasing power dropping... Yet still questioned the definition...

You:
But you just said that increase in price of goods is the only definition of inflation

Yes, that is the literal definition. The only definition. Because, as you've agreed, thats the way money works, if the price of goods increases, you can buy less of them with the same amount of money...

Which is why, the rise in the price of goods is the same thing as the decrease in purchasing power. Same measurement. Same numbers. Same thing.

Do you even understand the words you're writing?

Now, if you'd like to explain how printing money causes inflation, please, be my guest. Because I'm assuming that's what you really want to talk about, but apparently lack the ability to do so.

Please do share your "common sense" reasoning which you're probably just parrotting from someone without actually looking at the data.

a reply to: rounda

Do you even understand the words you're writing?

Indeed, I do.
I'm not the one trying to justify my capitulation with semantic games. It stands to reason that because the cost of goods goes up, the purchasing power goes down, however that is not what you typed now is it? Thus the query.

originally posted by: rounda
Inflation is the measurement of the price of goods.

Which goods? Do you have any clue how many different kinds of 'goods' there are?

Do you have any clue that the inflation of the money supply (without a corresponding increase in the GDP) affects each 'good' differently?

The price of goods increases when employers' bottom line increases.

Rotflmao!!!!!!!

Oh man, it is truly amazing how clueless people have absolutely no clue about just how clueless they are.

I believe the CPI, because I can actually see the change in the cost of goods...

You obviously don't even know what the CPI is.

By all means, reveal your cluelessness even more and enlighten me.

It doesn't matter how much money there is in circulation.
...
I understand how the economy works. You don't.

Rotflmao!!!!!!!

Oh man, it is truly amazing how clueless people have absolutely no clue about just how clueless they are.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: rounda

Do you even understand the words you're writing?

Indeed, I do.
I'm not the one trying to justify my capitulation with semantic games. It stands to reason that because the cost of goods goes up, the purchasing power goes down, however that is not what you typed now is it? Thus the query.

It's exactly what I typed, since they're the same thing............

Now, if you're done avoiding the topic, I'm still waiting for you to explain how printing money increases inflation.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rounda
Inflation is the measurement of the price of goods.

Which goods? Do you have any clue how many different kinds of 'goods' there are?

Do you have any clue that the inflation of the money supply (without a corresponding increase in the GDP) affects each 'good' differently?

The price of goods increases when employers' bottom line increases.

Rotflmao!!!!!!!

Oh man, it is truly amazing how clueless people have absolutely no clue about just how clueless they are.

I believe the CPI, because I can actually see the change in the cost of goods...

You obviously don't even know what the CPI is.

By all means, reveal your cluelessness even more and enlighten me.

It doesn't matter how much money there is in circulation.
...
I understand how the economy works. You don't.

Rotflmao!!!!!!!

Oh man, it is truly amazing how clueless people have absolutely no clue about just how clueless they are.

I don't know what the Consumer Price Index is, being a consumer who buys things?

Are you serious?

You're the clueless one. Go back to your "appreciating asset" thats not a currency, even though the stated goal of bitcoin is that it's a currency, and the website literally says its highly volatile...

Yep I'm the clueless one here... Lol.

originally posted by: rounda
in reply to: tanstaafl
I don't know what the Consumer Price Index is, being a consumer who buys things?

Correct. You don't.

Are you serious?

As a heart attack.

Every single word typed by your delicate little fingers makes that abundantly clear.

Yep I'm the clueless one here... Lol.

Yep, at least you are able to admit it... maybe you're not beyond hope...

Rotflmao!!!!!

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rounda
in reply to: tanstaafl
I don't know what the Consumer Price Index is, being a consumer who buys things?

Correct. You don't.

Are you serious?

As a heart attack.

Every single word typed by your delicate little fingers makes that abundantly clear.

Yep I'm the clueless one here... Lol.

Yep, at least you are able to admit it... maybe you're not beyond hope...

Rotflmao!!!!!

I suggest you go back to the post where I describe how shortages cause inflation, and how the charts for inflation match the charts for oil shortages more than they do for deficit spending.... then look at the CPI under the "energy goods" section.

I think you'll notice something....

Its not my fault you don't understand the economy.

originally posted by: rounda
in reply to: tanstaafl
I suggest you go back to the post where I describe how shortages cause inflation,

Wtf should I do that?

Shortages of one thing don't 'cause inflation'. A shortage of one thing will cause the price for that one thing to go up, yes. It is called supply and demand - which has nothing to do with inflation.

The CPI is based on a small basket of goods and it is heavily manipulated... and you, rounda, are being manipulated and don't even know it.

As I have said before...

The truly clueless - like yourself - have no clue about just how truly clueless they are.

Peace out.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rounda
in reply to: tanstaafl
I suggest you go back to the post where I describe how shortages cause inflation,

Wtf should I do that?

Shortages of one thing don't 'cause inflation'. A shortage of one thing will cause the price for that one thing to go up, yes. It is called supply and demand - which has nothing to do with inflation.

The CPI is based on a small basket of goods and it is heavily manipulated... and you, rounda, are being manipulated and don't even know it.

As I have said before...

The truly clueless - like yourself - have no clue about just how truly clueless they are.

Peace out.

And yet, the energy category on the CPI, which you haven't looked at, tracks energy commodities, such as "fuel oil" and "gasoline."

Funny thing is, those two goods show the largest rate of inflation. I dunno, I'm just spitballing here, but maybe the price of gas increasing would affect the price of all those other consumer goods being tracked... since gas is required to ship those goods to your local store...

Coincidentally, gasoline's price index began skyrocketing in February 2021 -- after two pre-pandemic years of hovering around 2-3% --, right after a president came into office who immediately began imposing restrictions on the American oil industry... coupled with the fact people were starting to go back to work....

It's almost as if he's creating scarcity through regulation, and more people are driving, increasing demand.......... weird, huh? Sounds like a shortage....

And what about all those ships sitting in ports with products that aren't getting to the store shelves? Sounds like a shortage...

And what about those workers who haven't returned to work to unload those ships, or manufacture those goods, or stock those shelves? Sounds like a shortage....

I don't expect you to understand that, though. Bitcoin isn't a currency, right?

originally posted by: rounda
Now, if you're done avoiding the topic, I'm still waiting for you to explain how printing money increases inflation.

It is actually the definition of inflation... the inflation of the money supply, without a corresponding increase in the GDP.

More money chasing the same amount of goods means the price of those goods goes up accordingly... INFLATION.

originally posted by: rounda
It's almost as if he's creating scarcity through regulation, and more people are driving, increasing demand.......... weird, huh? Sounds like a shortage....

Sure does... a decrease in the amount of goods drives up the price (same demand, less goods)... but that isn't INFLATION. That is the law of supply and demand.
...
I don't expect you to understand that, though. Bitcoin isn't a currency, right?
And from the Dept of Redundancy Dept: you are clueless.

Go back to playing D&D with your basement dwelling buds...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rounda
Now, if you're done avoiding the topic, I'm still waiting for you to explain how printing money increases inflation.

It is actually the definition of inflation... the inflation of the money supply, without a corresponding increase in the GDP.

More money chasing the same amount of goods means the price of those goods goes up accordingly... INFLATION.

Weird, because the official definition, direct from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, which is corroborated by literally every dictionary on the planet, is as follows:

www.bls.gov...

Inflation can be defined as the overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy.

Sorry, bud. You have no clue what you're talking about.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rounda
It's almost as if he's creating scarcity through regulation, and more people are driving, increasing demand.......... weird, huh? Sounds like a shortage....

Sure does... a decrease in the amount of goods drives up the price (same demand, less goods)... but that isn't INFLATION. That is the law of supply and demand.
...
I don't expect you to understand that, though. Bitcoin isn't a currency, right?

Sure, when you don't know what the definition of inflation is, you can assume whatever you want.

And from the Dept of Redundancy Dept: you are clueless. Go back to playing D&D with your basement dwelling buds...

Not my fault you don't understand how the economy works.

originally posted by: rounda
in reply to: tanstaafl
"Inflation can be defined as the overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy."

Sorry, bud. You have no clue what you're talking about.

And yet again, the truly clueless have no idea just how clueless they truly are.

That definition, in classic governmental gobbledyspeak, is merely a description of the result of inflation.

The question that the clueful will then ask is - what causes a 'general upward price movement of all goods and services'?

Oooh! Oooh! Mr. Kotter! I know this one! ... ahem ... "an increase in the money supply without a corresponding increase in the GDP (goods and services)." Yeah, clueless...

Of course, an artificially created condition resulting in a general decrease in the availability of goods and services - without a decrease in the corresponding demand - will also cause those prices to rise - but what caused that decrease, and was there also a massive increase in the monetary supply at the same time??

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rounda
in reply to: tanstaafl
"Inflation can be defined as the overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy."

Sorry, bud. You have no clue what you're talking about.

And yet again, the truly clueless have no idea just how clueless they truly are.

That definition, in classic governmental gobbledyspeak, is merely a description of the result of inflation.

The question that the clueful will then ask is - what causes a 'general upward price movement of all goods and services'?

Oooh! Oooh! Mr. Kotter! I know this one! ... ahem ... "an increase in the money supply without a corresponding increase in the GDP (goods and services)." Yeah, clueless...

Of course, an artificially created condition resulting in a general decrease in the availability of goods and services - without a decrease in the corresponding demand - will also cause those prices to rise - but what caused that decrease, and was there also a massive increase in the monetary supply at the same time??

So when you don't agree with a definition because it doesn't fit your narrative, you change it?

So you agree that an increase in demand will raise the price, and a decrease in supply will raise the price, but you disagree that imposing regulations on an industry while the demand increases for the goods that industry produces doesn't raise the price? Like say, for instance when millions of people are going back to work and need to fill their gas tanks, and the new president increases dependence on foreign oil by regulating national production?

And you propose that the price increasing on oil, which virtually ALL other goods depend on for either manufacturing or transportation, will have no affect on the prices of those goods?

Gobbledyspeak at its finest.

Its nice that you think increasing money supply affects inflation, but as I already pointed out, the charts don't match up.

Inflation rates do not coincide with defecit spending.

Inflation rates match up with oil shortages.

Weird how inflation rates skyrocketed a couple months after biden took office... And coincide with gas prices skyrocketing... Its like imposing regulations on the oil industry while demand was increasing was the main factor... Even through all the stimulus packages, inflation rates didn't surpass 2%... Until the regulations on the oil industry...

originally posted by: rounda
in reply to: tanstaafl
So when you don't agree with a definition because it doesn't fit your narrative, you change it?

When the definition is obviously incomplete or circular. I use my noggin.

Try it sometime.

So you agree that an increase in demand will raise the price,

For that product/service, yes.

That is not inflation, that is supply and demand in action.

and a decrease in supply will raise the price,

Yes, and again, supply and demand in action.

but you disagree that imposing regulations on an industry while the demand increases for the goods that industry produces doesn't raise the price?

Oh, it will, but it isn't inflation, it is due to the supply being artificially suppressed by unnecessary and unConstitional regulation.

Like say, for instance when millions of people are going back to work and need to fill their gas tanks, and the new president increases dependence on foreign oil by regulating national production?

Yes. Again, artificially created circumstances resulting in the law of supply and demand to do what it does (regardless of the cause of the change in supply or demand).

And you propose that the price increasing on oil, which virtually ALL other goods depend on for either manufacturing or transportation, will have no affect on the prices of those goods?

Never did I utter such a thing, as you well know, because it isn't true.

But again, but it isn't inflation, it is due to the supply being artificially suppressed by unnecessary and unConstitional regulation.

Gobbledyspeak at its finest.

No, it was gobbledy-inference on your part, twisting my words to fit your narrative.

Try again.

Its nice that you think increasing money supply affects inflation, but as I already pointed out, the charts don't match up.

You have pretty charts? Oooooh!

Inflation rates do not coincide with defecit spending.

Not precisely, no, because it takes time for the effects to trickle down (I imagine you'll be triggered yet again)...

Inflation rates match up with oil shortages.

The markets respond much more quickly to these things, which is why free market capitalism works so well, when it isn't hamstrung by ridiculously unnecessary and burdensome regulation.

Weird how inflation rates skyrocketed a couple months after biden took office.

Yes, because the year prior had seen Trillions of fresh new money injected into the equation, and it took that long for the effects to be reflected.

And coincide with gas prices skyrocketing.

That was a direct result of Brandon canceling the pipeline and all kinds of other insanity destroying our only recently acquired energy independence.

An honest question...

Does it hurt? To be you? To have to see your face in the mirror every morning? I'm just curious...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rounda
in reply to: tanstaafl
So when you don't agree with a definition because it doesn't fit your narrative, you change it?

When the definition is obviously incomplete or circular. I use my noggin.

Try it sometime.

So you agree that an increase in demand will raise the price,

For that product/service, yes.

That is not inflation, that is supply and demand in action.

and a decrease in supply will raise the price,

Yes, and again, supply and demand in action.

but you disagree that imposing regulations on an industry while the demand increases for the goods that industry produces doesn't raise the price?

Oh, it will, but it isn't inflation, it is due to the supply being artificially suppressed by unnecessary and unConstitional regulation.

Like say, for instance when millions of people are going back to work and need to fill their gas tanks, and the new president increases dependence on foreign oil by regulating national production?

Yes. Again, artificially created circumstances resulting in the law of supply and demand to do what it does (regardless of the cause of the change in supply or demand).

And you propose that the price increasing on oil, which virtually ALL other goods depend on for either manufacturing or transportation, will have no affect on the prices of those goods?

Never did I utter such a thing, as you well know, because it isn't true.

But again, but it isn't inflation, it is due to the supply being artificially suppressed by unnecessary and unConstitional regulation.

Gobbledyspeak at its finest.

No, it was gobbledy-inference on your part, twisting my words to fit your narrative.

Try again.

Its nice that you think increasing money supply affects inflation, but as I already pointed out, the charts don't match up.

You have pretty charts? Oooooh!

Inflation rates do not coincide with defecit spending.

Not precisely, no, because it takes time for the effects to trickle down (I imagine you'll be triggered yet again)...

Inflation rates match up with oil shortages.

The markets respond much more quickly to these things, which is why free market capitalism works so well, when it isn't hamstrung by ridiculously unnecessary and burdensome regulation.

Weird how inflation rates skyrocketed a couple months after biden took office.

Yes, because the year prior had seen Trillions of fresh new money injected into the equation, and it took that long for the effects to be reflected.

And coincide with gas prices skyrocketing.

That was a direct result of Brandon canceling the pipeline and all kinds of other insanity destroying our only recently acquired energy independence.

An honest question...

Does it hurt? To be you? To have to see your face in the mirror every morning? I'm just curious...

Why would it hurt to be me?

You're literally changing a definition to fit your narrative.

The actual, real, agreed upon, definition of inflation by every governing body, economics professional, and financial institution in the world is the measurement of the rise in prices of goods.

That's it.

The definition of the word doesn't include whatever factors you think causes it.

And you don't get to change the definition because you think the government is lying to you.

So when prices of a good increase over time, guess what?

That's the literal definition of inflation.

Now, since you can't seem to separate that concept from why you think inflation occurs, I'm going to say again:

Defecit spending (I.e. printing money) does NOT correlate with inflation, as per REAL WORLD DATA. There is literally ZERO CORRELATION between them.

www.longtermtrends.net...

It DOES NOT MATTER if more money is printed. The ONLY thing that matters is if economic growth keeps up supply vs demand.

Inflation is caused by shortages. Period.

And literally EVERYONE but you acknowledges we have supply chain shortages, worker shortages, and imposed oil shortages...

originally posted by: rounda
in reply to: tanstaafl
Why would it hurt to be me?

I dunno, just seems like it would be painful to be so clueless and wrong about ... everything...

But I guess it is really true that ignorance is bliss...

You're literally changing a definition to fit your narrative.

No, actually, it is the government that obfuscates and/or outright perverts the definitions of words in order to push their narrative. That said, if you know where to look, the truth can often be found (the below quote can be found about halfway down the text at this St Luis Federal Reserve webpage:

"Inflation is caused when the money supply in an economy grows at faster rate than the economy’s ability to produce goods and services."

The actual, real, agreed upon, definition of inflation by every governing body, economics professional, and financial institution in the world is the measurement of the rise in prices of goods.

That is what they want you to believe - both the definition they changed years ago, and that there is 'consensus' (they love that word too) - yes. But just because you happen to have fallen for their whopper, that doesn't make it true.

From the 19th century up to the Eleventh New Collegiate Dictionary—issued in 2003—Webster's defined inflation as what happens when a country prints too much money, which is exactly what hawks worry the Fed's monetary stimulus is doing now.

But in 2003, the definition changed to "a continuing rise in the general price level," which is only "usually attributed" to an abundance of money, suggesting the doves could have a point.

Not everyone accepts the update. Michael Pento, an economist with Euro Pacific Capital, keeps a pre-2003 Webster's on his desk. Asked about the newer definition, he scoffs: "I take huge issue with that. They have everything upside down."

Now, I ask again...

Does it hurt?

a reply to: tanstaafl

We're not on the gold standard anymore, bud. So the definition of inflation before Nixon ended USD to gold transferability no longer applies....

The USD is directly tied to the strength of economy and ability to pay back debt.

Hence the reason the USD is one of the most stable currencies in the world, and used as a reserve currency.

And the reason the real world data you ignore shows you're wrong.

Sorry bud.

originally posted by: rounda
a reply to: tanstaafl

We're not on the gold standard anymore, bud. So the definition of inflation before Nixon ended USD to gold transferability no longer applies....

That's it? That's all you got? "We're not on the gold standard anymore"?

Rotflmao!!!

First, neither the Feducation series at the first link or the article in the WSJ at the second link were written when we were on a gold standard, so you're point is... insane (bud)...

Second, whether a country is on a gold standard or not is irrelevant to inflation. Inflation is caused by loose monetary policy that allows currency to be injected into the market at will.

You probably don't even understand the basics of how our current monetary system even works. I'll give you a hint: it is called a debt/usury based fiat system.

The USD is directly tied to the strength of economy and ability to pay back debt.

That is a purely nonsensical statement (bud)... the funniest thing about it is that you don't even know it.

Hence the reason the USD is one of the most stable currencies in the world, and used as a reserve currency.

It is used as the worlds reserve currency because it is (still - for now) the strongest, yes, but that is only because we used to have rather sane monetary policies - or at least not rabidly insane policies. Up until The Federal Reserve Act at least. It's been all down hill ever since 1933 when FDR stole the people's money (gold), then Johnson stole our silver when they debased the coinage (which was a death penalty offense until about 10 years before they did that, guess they didn't want to take any chances in case the people woke up to what they were doing) - but keeping us on the international gold standard (for foreign nations the dollar was still redeemable in gold until '73) kept the dollar relatively strong to that point. Yeah, it took a while to get where we are now, on the verge of hyper-inflation.

bud...