|
Disinterested posted:Are you joking about this guy liking Pinochet? I mean, I would look at his post history but that would just be creepy and feverish. Pinochet was not the greatest, but he's been misrepresented you see.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So you went hunting feverishly through my post history for anything you could try to use as a burn? That's not less creepy. Seek mental help. A basic ability to recall things and connect them together is indeed a mental illness. The Austrian school told us so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Guys I think I need help. Today I clicked on "User Control Panel" in order to see a list of threads I am subscribed to. I remembered how a basic feature of Vbulletin forums works, and used it. The DSM V says it's so hosed up that I may as well be torturing small animals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Are you joking about this guy liking Pinochet? I mean, I would look at his post history but that would just be creepy and feverish. I have already proved my creepy feverish mental illness in this thread by my willingness to read what other people have written, so I have no qualms here. wateroverfire posted:[ed: Post is in response to Fishmech: "Allende's system was objectively working better than the Pinochet regime ever did."]
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Demand is functionally infinite Antares posted:I can confirm that if chemotherapy were free I would get an infinite amount of chemotherapy even if it was unnecessary or harmful Confirmed  
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:In what way is this interpretation of demand useful as opposed to one that takes into account constraints of time and tradeable wealth? I'm earnestly asking here; not trying to be sarcastic or put up a rhetorical question. Usually when people talk about economic demand, we talk about an understanding of it that takes into account ability and willingness to trade. "Tradeable wealth" implies goods which is fine in my book. Demand as typically used however implies a combination of desire and money. These are either functionally infinite or possibly infinite. Hence its not a good point of emphasis for overall economic understanding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Brb it's free to drink from the Colorado river so I'm going to go drink an infinite amount now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:19
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Brb it's free to drink from the Colorado river so I'm going to go drink an infinite amount now. Air is free so I am trying my hardest to breathe as much as possible. People think I look weird to be gasping for breath all the time, but they don't know I'm just maximising my utility over here. It has still yet to be shown ITT how the gently caress there is an infinite demand for anything, whereas less retarded analogies than mine seem to suggest it isn't.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
I know of one, and only one, instance of genuinely infinite demand: The Polititoons thread has infinite demand for atrocious political cartoons 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Surprisingly, the fact that the definition of infinity is freely available has not created infinite demand for learning it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
MIGF probably has infinite demand for atrocious Midwestern food and badly written foreign policy opinion pieces.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:"Tradeable wealth" implies goods which is fine in my book. Demand as typically used however implies a combination of desire and money. These are either functionally infinite or possibly infinite. Hence its not a good point of emphasis for overall economic understanding. What timescale are you talking about. I'm trying to decide if your being sophistic or retarded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:"Tradeable wealth" implies goods which is fine in my book. Demand as typically used however implies a combination of desire and money. These are either functionally infinite or possibly infinite. Hence its not a good point of emphasis for overall economic understanding. Infinite money. Do we understand what money is here, asdf32?  No, no we clearly do not
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
"The sinews of retardation are infinite money" - Cicero, maybe.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Are you joking about this guy liking Pinochet? I mean, I would look at his post history but that would just be creepy and feverish. He's a Chicago school Chilean who hates Allende soooooooo.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
This forum posted:I am a gringo leftist who knows nothing about Chilean history. Let me condescend to tell you about why Allende was awesome because edit: Sweet, a new AV. More  redistributed from the wallets of the global 1%.
wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
You leftards know nothing about history. *Defends ridiculously incompetent fascist dictatorship*
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
That thing I literally just posted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:He's a Chicago school Chilean who hates Allende soooooooo..... Whoa whoa whoa way to feverishly catalogue things that he said. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Pinochet was just responding with proportional force to those violent leftists. He didn't want to hurt anybody but as you can see he didn't really have a choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:edit: Sweet, a new AV. More Allende's computerized economic system was nifty looking but dumb FYI. I'm just saying that with my extensive databases of your posts you're checking all the boxes for a lover of Pinochet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:What timescale are you talking about. I'm trying to decide if your being sophistic or retarded. Neither I hope. There is literally a guy in the right government office who can create electronic funds with a few clicks of his mouse. And printing presses which create currency effortlessly. I'm not sure what you think bounds the money supply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Neither I hope. Oh so you are being sophistic then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That thing I literally just posted. Yes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:55
|
|
asdf32 posted:Neither I hope. I fear your life as a supply side economist is going to be difficult at best if you also don't understand monetary policy at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Neither I hope. No there isn't. You're laughably ignorant of monetary policy, please stop embarrassing yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Neither I hope. Wait, are you saying you think some rogue central banker can print out a brazillion dollars whenever he feels like it, or that he is doing that? Because either way, you're a complete goddamned moron.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
The Weimar Republic makes a pretty strong argument for the validity of any infinite money "theory". 'Infinite' money has 'zero' value. Maybe there would be infinite demand for currency to use as insulation or kindling. Antares fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I fear your life as a supply side economist is going to be difficult at best if you also don't understand monetary policy at all. No, he'd be the same as every other supply side economist
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 18:45
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, he'd be the same as every other supply side economist Yeah....no. This is way dumber than, say, Friedman.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Several years ago I asked: If the cook at McDonalds can make 300 Big Macs in an hour, how many Big Macs does he make between 1 and 4 pm? The answer was predictable. The posting style reminds me of my libertarian days where even if I was completely ignorant of a subject, I felt I could post with authority using my "logic" and deriving the answers through rational discussion and axiomic principles. And I was just as obtuse of an idiot. In fact that was my first red custom title: OBTUSE. Edit: also reminds me of the days where kids would go around claiming 1 + 2 = 4, and then they would show you how if you put the 1 at the base of the 2 then it resembles the number 4. Statements backed up by pure fantasy that requires you to squint real hard in order to see the ridiculous gist of the useless scenario. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Neither I hope. Do you also think Moore's law will continue forever?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
I have an anecdote. When I was 12 I wondered aloud why we couldn't just have everyone pay for everything in deciduous tree leaves, which would only have a finite supply each year but would be a lot more fair than the way money is allocated now, (it had not occurred to me that land owners would have way more trees than other people, I was 12 shut up). I was told by my friends Rush Limbaugh listening father that wouldn't work because people would have no incentive to work and people would just sit around all day and go outside and pick up leaves when they were hungry. I couldn't really see the issue with this except that people might run out of them in the winter. My 12 year old dumb rear end self understood supply and demand better than some of the people in this thread, I had a half formed brain, what the gently caress is your excuse?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:"Tradeable wealth" implies goods which is fine in my book. Demand as typically used however implies a combination of desire and money. These are either functionally infinite or possibly infinite. Hence its not a good point of emphasis for overall economic understanding. Fiat money certainly is extremely flexible, but the purchasing power that lies behind it is much less so. My original question was, why consider the money supply instead of the aggregated purchasing power that it backs when calculating demand? It doesn't seem to have much use to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:There's a finite amount of space to store the electronic funds and printed currency, and an expected end date for the universe - finite. Nothing that exists is infinite (possibly divisions of time/space, but since there's Planck length/time, that's irrelevant). I realize that the argument makes you look a bit dumb if you have to say "really big" instead of infinite, but there it is. And this also misses a little ol thing called "inflation." If the United States Government prints a trillion trillion hundred-dollar bills and starts airdropping them into the cities of the nation, we're not going to suddenly be a trillion times wealthier than everybody else: the value of those dollars will plummet. Money is only infinite in a beep-boop quantities sort of way, not an "ability to trade for goods" way. Which would be trivially obvious to anyone who's not trying very, very unsuccessfully to be fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Neither I hope. Even accepting you logic unquestioningly, unbounded and infinite are not the same thing. E: I remember you now, you're the guy making bad econ 1 posts about how if costs go up prices must necessarily do so as well. Retake econ 1, guy. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Add "creepy" to words libertarians/et al. don't know the meaning of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Fiat money certainly is extremely flexible, but the purchasing power that lies behind it is much less so. My original question was, why consider the money supply instead of the aggregated purchasing power that it backs when calculating demand? It doesn't seem to have much use to me. Ok great. Aggregate purchasing power measured in goods and supply are essentially the same thing. The deviation between the only being a small percentage of unsold goods that actually go to waste. This is my point...hence the primary way purchasing power increases over time is via supply side improvements that allow production of more goods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok great. Aggregate purchasing power measured in goods and supply are essentially the same thing. The deviation between the only being a small percentage of unsold goods that actually go to waste. This is my point...hence the primary way purchasing power increases over time is via supply side improvements that allow production of more goods. Which again, tells us nothing of worth to the economy since its the most basic econ 101 statement in existence. Yes asdf32, when we improve our capability to build more things we can build more things. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok great. Aggregate purchasing power measured in goods and supply are essentially the same thing. The deviation between the only being a small percentage of unsold goods that actually go to waste. This is my point...hence the primary way purchasing power increases over time is via supply side improvements that allow production of more goods. This keeps popping up in your posts. Recessions are "just a few percentage points" of negative growth, or just a tiny blip of a few years in a country's GDP curve, and other such statements to minimize everyone else's points. It sounds like the talks I had with my pothead friends ("Dude, mankind's collective consciousness is soooo big. It's infinity cubed. So vast that it doubled right over to being tiny, and then big again"), but far less entertaining. As someone who graduated college during one of such tiny 'blips', I can tell you that they can spell doom for a whole generation and have profound effects for decades to come. We're talking millions of man-hours of underpaid work, degradation of worker and personal rights, less research and general welfare, just because some brainiacs decided to let the captains of industry create their own demand. Not all percentage points are born equal
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:38
|
|