A10:

I read it. Only an [ ] would submit a post to the thread if they were not interested in the thread. OH SNAP!

- - - - -

Gladiator:

He's arrogant because you're too arrogant to read his post and post what you disagree with? Why don't you try reading his post and then posting what you disagree with and why next time instead of calling him a name which perhaps better suits you?

- - - - -

[RPA] Arandur:

It's not a matter of opinion that massive debt spending only increases inflation. Printing money [whether actually producing currency and introducing it to the world or just spending on debt] and spending it gives the printer the power to command labor and resources, but the labor and resources don't actually materialize out of thin here. Society pays for it with the devaluing of their currency; inflation. It's not a matter of opinion that President Obama is about to spend ANOTHER trillion+ dollars that the US government doesn't have. This is a fact. Bush's spending was bad. Bush isn't President now. Obama is. Obama's spending is going to increase inflation. I think that's the topic here? Simple fact. One could argue that it's worth it. He obviously does. [Well, not really. He doesn't address the facts to an educated public. We're his sheep. Bahhhh] Why not try discussing the benefits of his inflation-increasing spending which make it not the biggest "problem" causing inflation? Because no one's going to support the claim that President Obama isn't going to increase inflation. That'd just be ignorant.

- - - - -

[TI] Sitting Duck:

LOL. Yeah I would have liked to see where his % values were coming from. I give him credit for his poorly organized and structured list of sources of inflation. It's something upon which we've built! And I do believe we were lacking inflation education in this elementary classroom of the IC politics forum. And the LOL is for your list of his predictions hahahaha. I take it for what it's worth. I do not believe all of the "contributing factors" to inflation are necessarily as he says they are (oversimplication, factors left out), but fortunately Zarf BeebleBrix responded to those points better than I could have.

- - - - -

Red_Rooster:

You racist ignorant twat-waffle! Bush created Katrina, a racist storm to kill african Amerikans. Nevermind the fact that the governor refused offered National Guard assistance (and they can't just do what they want. the Governeror has to allow their actions) and Bush would have had to be a fascist and break laws to do more. That would be an INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Ha ha ha. Al Gore is a tool. But I digress. Bush made Katrina. Katrina was a racist storm. And anyone who says otherwise is an insensitive, ignorant racist. Period.

- - - - -

[RPA] Arocalex:

Hey! I went to school for [WAY TOO MANY] years for my degree in bullshitting. They hand them out in the streets now? Damn I got suckered. THEY TOOK MY WALLET. :'( Does theft increase inflation? No? Just sucks to be me? Figured.

- - - - -

Zarf BeebleBrix:

Are you on crack? Bush and Obama don't use a Xerox machine. Those $1000 toilets seats have produced a much more awesome inflation machine. And yes, it blasts Michael Jackson's "Bad" as it prints trillions of dollars.

- - - - -

avogadro : HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA. Thank you.

- - - - -

Einstein:

"To bad there are no leftists in this forum who can make sound arguments and stand by them"

hahahahahahahahahaha. So true. So sad.

- - - - -

Wild Flower Soul

It's a matter of extent. He's arguing all of the reasons present it may [very likely] happen. Giving an example of one nation for a few decades [or less?] does not offer any insight or reasons he's wrong. Every nation has a multitude of specific conditions of resources, culture, surroundings, etc that affect its economy. There's also the fact that that debt just may eventually have to be repaid. Significant differences there between a nation with massive debt and another without.

- - - - -

Avo: You're right. He's a wanker. They disagree, but wishing cannot make it so!

- - - - -

And now you have my ten cents. My two cents is free! Deal with it.

> Wild Flower Soul wrote:

> "Well historically, countries with huge debts have frequently experienced hyperinflation."

Yes, but not all of them
Belgium's a great example of that. Our national debt is the highest in the Euozone, yet our economy's suffering less in this economic crisis than most other countries and we're experiencing a deflation
A statedebt is an important factor in hyperinflation, but it's not a determining element...<<

Then belgium is the exception, as a small nation versus the world and several thousand years of history disagree. There your weak and unsubstntiated argument is countered *yawn*

I was mostly just schooling the youngsters because my education is economics is sadly lacking.

I'm a reasonable enough individual. I'm sure I'm just being modest and can match most of these 15 year olds, but I don't take it upon myself to post my relative ignorance of economics much. I was talking about the credit/housing crash 5 years ago. Common sense goes a long way. It's important to educate that common sense with the many factors which influence such a large (understatement of the day) economy as ours. Leaving any of them short circuits common sense. But in the end, though there are many factors, it's not inherently complicated. (Yeah I know, massive number of factors but not complicated. I must be drinking.) I mean that it is in and of itself rational. Nobody is giving money away screwing up the logic of the system. Everyone is doing what they have to and what they judge will benefit them the most. So when government takes or talks about taking X action, one can use their damn head and tell what the many far reaching effects of this action would be.

That's why children who do not grasp the fundamentals but post (and, much worse, vote, for that matter!) anyway are so disappointing to me. Deficit spending to create economic prosperity! Someone needs to stand up and shout NIGGA WHAT!?

How long can they get away with it while their debt increases, again?

Debt is not a problem unless the collector is hurting you over it. Some nations get away with not paying their debts MUCH better than others. A debt is just a deficit from some time past. It's continual and massive deficit spending that is a problem. Someone always paying for it.

> Wild Flower Soul wrote:

> "Then belgium is the exception, as a small nation versus the world and several thousand years of history disagree. There your weak and unsubstntiated argument is countered *yawn*"

Oooh! Are we discussing history now, great!
Spain had a gigantic large state debt during the peak of its power and it wasn't a problem for a long time. It flourished economicly, despite of this huge debt. It collapsed when their political ambitions became too great, wich crippled the economy itself. Then the state debt became a problem.
But my favourite is the empire of Charles V, holy roman emperor in the early 16th century (however Spain's situation is very related to him, it's not really the same). His debt was obnoxious, primaly with the Fugger family, yet it was a time of economic prosperity in his empire, until the faith-troubles appeared.

My point, again, being that state debt can drag the entire economy down and cause hyperinflation, but it doesn't have to necessarily do so. As long as the state plays it clever and makes sure the economy is doing well, they can get away with it..

Also the size of Belgium doesn't matter, nor the so called "thousands of years of economic history". The latter clearly proves there's no direct law between state debt and hyperinflation. You didn't counter my argument, you just denounced/ignored it. That's not really discussing it

No because your argument was not large enough, information filled enough, nor substansive in any manner. This post however is better.

I argue that Spain used it's incoming wealth to offset it's incoming debt, and successfully. That is a unique period in world history.

Before the troubles the Church had 100% of the attention, and so little fraud or corruption, excepting at the head imo, but I digress. This faith allowed people to have the faith that things would keep going ok, a unique aspect in of itself.

I would testify these unique circumstances only prove the rule.

So who got shafted under those?

yeah. but I can dig it.

Spain did suffer massive economic failure through splurging because it controlled gigakilos of silver. even with the world's most massive supplies of bullion and no paper money it borrowed itself into economic ruin.  That and teh French army learnt how to pwn.

And Belgium uses the Euro, so there's two reasons you don't experience inflation--you export the loss of value to German banks, and you import slave labor from Holland. eg Primo

the $350 billion TARP spent by Bush was spent against FUTURE borrowing.  the Federal Reserve is prepared to purchase $1 trillion in securities when the treasury dept comes up with the red tape, that's from thin air.  the Treasury is gonna spend another $350 billion TARP II authorized in January.  All this is apart from the $960 billion stimulus bill.  All in all, while paper bills wn't be Xeroxed, the # of $s in circulation will probably double in Obama's term.

8% inflation is pretty low compared tot he 1970s.  This recession contrary to the LIES is not a permanent deal, too much of the banking world survived to collapse.  Unemployment won't exceed 20% even if we have constant hurricanes like Katrina and more terror attacks.  What we have now is proof many of the winners of the past 20 years are, morons.  and why give your $$ to a moron? better stuff it in a mattress.  When people can make money for 3 solid quarters, they'll draw backers.  And they'll be copied.  That's how the ball gets rolling.

Recession will end in a couple years easy.  After that, comes inflation.  And the cure for inflation is to hike interest rates to about 8% from teh current .5%  While that works to shrink the money supply, you have a frozen credit market and a recession...and inflation hasn't left yet.  stagflation is the final stages of curing inflation.

Dorks like Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman shriek that can't happen because the bond market will generate endless $$$$$$$ to the USA like silver to Madrid in 1500s.  Just as they shrieked the dot.com boom broke the business cycle and that mortgages were a risk-free rocket to perpetual growth.

T-bill = Ponzi scheme.  you won't get paid beyond 2010 on a 2009 bond purchase except that somebody else buys a T-bill.  And you get paid in $ instead of hard foriegn currency.  Given the asspanic of 2008 I have every confidence that Washington will sooner default that put the burden of repayment on the American voter.  And when they get that dumb, who will trust the USA?  We had a constitutional convention in 1797 because our $ was worthless.

so i read part of this, and got sick of the biased idiocies you have stuck in your head.

currently the chief source of inflation, which as you state is essentially the value of for us americans the dollar. the reason inflation is so high in the past few years, is quite simple. we have been exporting far less then we have been importing. when this happens, foreign countries have more "dollars" on hand to buy our goods with. the more of our "money" that remains in the hands of foreigners, the more bills we have to print. logically if you have 1 piece of gold, and give jimmy 10 pieces of paper that represent its worth, and he exchanges 5 of them to susie but then goes on to realize that there is not enough left to him to be evenly distributed and he is forced to print 5 more pieces of paper, obviously those are worth less than when there were only 10 pieces.

blaming inflation, or anything for that matter on the "obama years" is pure right-winged republican stupidity, or rather genius depending on how you look at it. if they can manage to make us all forget how wonderfully managed our government as a whole, and finances in particular, were managed over the past 8 years than just maybe they can get some power back under their belt.

woah woah keep real information out of here. we're much happier in our bullshit fairytale land of nonsense and how we feel things should be.

> Chamelio Salamander wrote:

> lol Han

avo who are you talking to? If you're talking to WFS then I think you mean to say, "No, it wasn't." If it was flint, then shouldn't it be "No, he didn't"?

I suppose it doesn't matter much since on either counts you're wrong in both your response and how you worded it =p

really? you're so desperate you're going after minor grammar mistakes?