Day 106 - Inflation, Stupidity on the Rise

Status: Thinking. Hi, yes, I'm still here, though I've been busy recently, and overwhelmed at the speed with which the Obama Administration has been moving. Unfortunately, the Stimulus (read "Spending") Bill has been passed. [Read/search the bill here]

Apparently, I like getting into political fights on the internet as well, because recently I got into another one. This one was on the aforementioned bill. The thread's title was "Do you believe the Stimulus bill was really bipartisan? I don't.". This lead to a discussion where I got involved. The following transcript occurred: [Thread Viewable Here]

I (tustin2121) said:

Politics! Gah! I don't want to get involved, but....

No, the bill isn't bipartisan, but the Dems WANT it to be bipartisan so that when it fails, they can blame Republicans. (Note: not "if" it fails, but when, because spending several billion dollars will, if already hasn't, cause major inflation, which is BAD for the economy. If there were tax cuts in there, there won't be when they're done with it. And I know they're gonna try and slip in a few things that Republicans should hate too.)

Person A said:

tustin2121:

Politics! Gah! I don't want to get involved, but....

cause major inflation, which is BAD for the economy. If there were tax cuts in there, there won't be when they're done with it. And I know they're gonna try and slip in a few things that Republicans should hate too.)

Step outside sir.

You *Punches tustin* will not *backhand* talk utter *knees Tustin in the face* crap in economic *crushes Tustin's nose* terms *final punch* again.

As you can see, economic ignorance is something that makes me deeply angry.

I responded:

Excuse me?! Economic Crap?! What makes me economically ignorant? PLEASE point out my flaws instead of simply beating me up! This isn't a counter argument, it's violence (albeit fake violence, but you get the point).

Also, if you're going to quote me, quote my entire statement, thank you. You seemed to have left out a vital part of my argument...

Person B responded:

Indeed he did. He's right though.
tustin2121:

because spending several billion dollars will, if already hasn't, cause major inflation

This is wrong.

I respond:

No it isn't. Listen: money only has a certain value if a) it is backed by something of real value (eg Gold) or b) it is limited in quantity in proportion to all the goods in the market. Money by itself does not have any value; the paper bill has no intrinsic value, and most coins now a days are made of worthless pot-metal.

If there's more money in the system then there is value, then the value per money unit (eg. the dollar) drops (simple division here). When the value per dollar drops, people have to pay more dollars to get the same valued item, which is "rising prices", which is "inflation".

MMO designers and managers know this, because they use the same concept in games that have an economy. If there the value of their currency starts to fall, they'll create "gold sinks", which in the games usually are NPC shop owners and the like. When a player pays for something from the gold sink, the gold is taken from the player and taken out of the economy, which keeps the value of the gold from dropping.

Creating a money sink in real life is much much harder, because only the Federal Reserve, and by extension the Government, has the ability (or rather, the interest) to take money out of the system; everyone else wants and needs to use the money.

Therefore, generating money out of nowhere, like the stimulus bill proposes, will flood the market with representations of value (money) when no real value is being produced, and will cause hyper-inflation. QED.

Person B replies:

tustin2121:

Therefore, generating money out of nowhere, like the stimulus bill proposes, will flood the market with representations of value (money) when no real value is being produced, and will cause hyper-inflation. QED.

Oh, I won't argue about a bill I don't know anything about, but your initial post said:
tustin2121:

because spending several billion dollars will, if already hasn't, cause major inflation

and that is plain wrong. Investments can be the way to counteract inflation. I won't argue your poins on the specific bill, 'cause I can't be bothered to research it. But what you wrote there, was very wrong.

As for
tustin2121:

No it isn't. Listen: money only has a certain value if a) it is backed by something of real value (eg Gold) or b) it is limited in quantity in proportion to all the goods in the market. Money by itself does not have any value; the paper bill has no intrinsic value, and most coins now a days are made of worthless pot-metal.

That is wrong too. The world eceonomy runs on one central things today: optimism. I'm not BS'ing here.

I replied:

How can one statement be wrong and the other right when both are saying the same thing? Are we talking in double speak now? In order to spend the 700+ billion dollars, someone has to generate it first. Simply making the money does nothing if it doesn't get spent into the economy. Therefore, they go hand in hand when it comes to this.

[And] Yes, the economy does run on optimism, or as I like to call it, a promise; the promise was that this dollar has value. We run on this optimism because we scrapped the "backed by gold" in the 20's-30's, and we are now scrapping the "proportional value" with this bill. We are breaking the promise that we wouldn't make more representations of value than there is value by making billions of representations of value without making new value (or making very little of it).

Of course, more is to come, but I do think that people are getting slowly dumber as time goes on. This isn't rocket science, and I sure hope I explained the non-rocket-science to them well enough...

End Log.

Day 35 - Ontological Marginalization

Status: about to rant:

So, I was called "Closed-minded" again today. I was called it once or twice before, and usually while I was speaking something about politics or Obama. Well, today, it was during a debate. On YouTube. About pot smoking. Or rather those who smoke pot. The debate can be found in it's original context here, if you really want to see it. Just do a find (Ctrl+F) for my name, Tustin2121, on the second page. And if you're going there, you might as well watch the video too, 'cause it's pretty funny.

But I digress (slightly). Let's give some context. I make a small comment about how the video shows how pot smokers talk about conspiracies. I said something about how pot smokers don't make up conspiracies, they get them from elsewhere and they think they're real. Well, a debate breaks out, and it starts out friendly enough, but soon it degrades into name calling - and I mean very soon. To see the debate, in full (posted here for archival and don't-delete-my-posts! reasons) see the addendum to this post.

Anyhow, eventually someone posted this:

People like you are the reason racism, sexism, and ontological marginalization occur on a daily basis.

So thank you for aiding and abeting the social reproduction of ignorant stereotypes and unjust prejudice.

I hope one day you realize that even the most avid "pot smoker" can never be as closed-minded as you.

Well, as you can probably see, I've won the debate. As soon as name calling this fierce ensues, and no arguments are made, you've won, hands down. And I'm sure she was aiming for my self esteem, but she missed it by a mile and actually made me feel better.

Long story short, I'm tired of people calling me closed minded, so I've change my manner about it. I no longer worry about it, and in fact I am glad they did! I'm happy to be called closed-minded. Because, every time someone is called "closed-minded", then they have conservative values. That's what being closed-minded is! Having Conservative Values! Because, we all know, every time someone is called "open-minded", we always end up with more of our freedom being taken from us. Always!

And in fact, let me take this a step further. Being closed-minded means you have values. Values that you do not want to alter; values you know are right and true by you. Being open-minded means that you'll accept what ever is coming at you without a filter (at least that's what it should mean, but it seems most open-minded people have filters against closed-minded, aka conservative, values).

So, thank you, whatever-your-name-was, thank you for this epiphany. I AM closed-minded and I'm proud to be.

Oh yes, and someone tell me what Ontological Marginalization is, please? It's alphabet soup to me and is probably some buzz word for spreading conservatism. I googled it, and nothing reliable came up, so, whatever. :)

End Log.

Day 35 Addendum - YouTube Debate

Begin YouTube Transcript. Names have been removed to protect the pot heads.
[Person A] said:

not all pot smokers make up conspiracy theories dude

Tustin2121 said:

Who said anything about making them up? They think they're real. And usually they just repeat what others have already made up, but they're tripping so hard that they think it's a brilliant idea they just came up with. Believe me, I know, I have a friend who's always high.

[Person A] said:

You have a friend that's always high, and you're basing your opinions on marijuana smokers on just his actions??? Wtf?

Tustin2121 said:

Is there a problem with that? I don't see the problem with basing your opinion on pots smokers ON a pot smoker. It's not like I got my opinion off TV or something.

Show me a couple pot smokers who aren't talking about conspiracies or writing poetry. Yeah, I know it's a stereotype, but those have to get started somewhere.

(Though, where did the fried chicken for blacks come from?, 'cause that's just weird and stupid.)

[Person B] said:

your stupid, dont judge if you have never smoked

Tustin2121 said:

Right, I'm not the one sucking in smoke and killing brain cells and/or developing cancer.

And besides, that's not what this thread is about. I don't judge you - smoke all you want. But I'm saying that people who smoke pot usually fall into the same general personality set, and one of their traits is believing in conspiracy theories.

I'm not judging you, though by how very well-written your argument is, I'd say your short a couple IQ points yourself. It's "you're", not "your".

[Person C] said:

conspiracy's? Im sorry but I smoked pot throughout my childhood and never had a sence of being watch'd or beleaved that someone was planning something out of the ordinary. Also "pot" dosen't cause cancer, because if pot caused cancer then doctors in florida and california wouldn't give it away as a prescription for cancer. Although yes it does kill brain cell it still is the safest drug out there. (not inplying that anyoneoke it) should sm

I responded to this post, however, someone felt the need to delete it. I told him I hoped his "childhood" didn't include years with a single digit. I also told him that being watched doesn't necessarily have to be part of the conspiracies, and usually include the government gaining control of things they couldn't possibly gain control of. I related Katrina without getting into details.


[Person D] said:

So every sterotype has some some sort of basis. Like Blacks and watermelons and Asains and being bad drivers and how about all jews being rich or all Indian people smelling bad? Give me a break man seems like you're the one with a low I.Q......Square

I also responded to this post, but someone deleted it as well. I told him, yes: Jews were the only people's whose religion allowed them to work in banks, and I knew more than a couple Indians who had unfortunate body odor problems. I also said I didn't know where the first two came from.


[Person E] said:

People like you are the reason racism, sexism, and ontological marginalization occur on a daily basis.

So thank you for aiding and abeting the social reproduction of ignorant stereotypes and unjust prejudice.

I hope one day you realize that even the most avid "pot smoker" can never be as closed-minded as you.

Tustin2121 said:

Hm... Someone's been deleting my posts....

Thank you for name calling because you have not argued your point, you have simply called me closed-minded, a racist, a sexist, and some other "mean" words. You realize that by doing so you have proven that you have lost the debate.

And, you know what, I'm going to take that "closed-minded" name as a complement, because whenever someone is called "open-minded" more of our freedom slips away. Thank you.

Tustin2121 said:

Oh yes, and while we're at it, please define "ontological marginalization", because for all I know it means absolutely nothing.

End Transcript. Will be updated as needed.