It's the precise opposite from what you said.

is it possible to not understand at this level? i mean, it must be, because here you are.

This is probably the major problem in the economy at the moment and it should be a criticism.

A problem is that the money you pay in servicing debt is not used to facilitate economic activity, which you would use it for. It's used to increase capital even further. Once you have spent the money you are left with shackles that prevent your full economic expression. And the capital your debt turns into is not used.

Why do I say all this? If you don't understand, i can only urge you to read Piketty. The bottom line is that if the amount of growth of capital is not matched by the amount of growth in the economy, plus inflation roughly, the economy necessarily contracts.

Well then.

And don't forget not everyone can live in ****sville. You wouldn't rent much in London for 1K a month at real rates. So "comfortably" would have to mean 'without eating".

Asked and answered.

That was actually superbly astute.

city of Atlanta is ****sville? (yes I know, har har)

how many feudal serfs could afford to lounge around and do jack diddly for 3 days/week? with air conditioning!

and my 4 days calculation is based on $8/hour, ~minimum wage. Average national wage is over $20/hour iirc.

I had the same exact thought about him several months ago, and it's stuck ever since.

They're going well because the market is pricing in these reforms as expected given our relative monopoly of power. However, if we don't get this done, it will all be clawed back.

in 2009, and every year since, everyone invested heavily in the prospect of Trump 2016

Feudal serfs a/ were responsible for feeding themselves but that's it so in fact could lounge around if they chose and b/ did in fact lounge around for nearly half the year (Europe has a winter). They didn't need airconditioning because northern Europe never gets hot enough. It seems to be a selling point for you but it's not for most people. They also had community, a sense of purpose and so on.

You cannot be taken seriously since you say so many manifestly ridiculous things.

mate, this is what i always think about you. you just repeat what i'm saying over and over it seems.

jeez, come up with an original idea for once.

that wasn't the speculation part.

this is the sort of idea was i looking for by the way

distribution of resources at a micro level rather than from top-down. arguably has better results, but it's contextual.

i guess contraction is independent wrt inflation.

If that's a serious question then no it isn't.

It depends what's contracting of course.

Don't write ****ty things about me and then delete them. Have the balls to say them so everyone can see.

You don't know any economics. If you were bright, you'd stfu and learn from people who do. It would be okay if you asked what are fundamentally stupid questions and learned from the answers but instead you make fundamentally stupid statements.

You've now developed the infuriating habit of talking utter **** and then claiming you meant the eminently more sensible thing someone says to refute the **** you spew. I don't discount the possibility you in fact mean the exact reverse of what you say because you don't know anything at all, but that doesn't change what you're doing.

Even in free-market economics the way this works is there's a total amount of money M that pays for goods and services G. If there is not enough M, the goods and services cannot be sold.

In the case of labour, of course you can offer labour at a lower price, but there has to be a price where you're indifferent to working. One of the disputes between conservatives and liberals is how reasonable it is to set wages at or below that point of indifference and whether the state has any right to shift it by using welfare or supplementing wages.

I mean, if you're struggling to see what I mean, think about your own resources. You buy x, y and z with the money you have available. Now, you might be able to increase the amount of money you have by borrowing or by using savings (contrastively deploying your future or your past work, actually). But there's a limit. Let's say there's a marginal good or service. That marginal good or service cannot be sold to you at the price it's sold at. In theory there's a point at which the price equals the cost of producing the good or service so it cannot be offered for less (the conservatives ignore this by demanding that labour should be available at less than cost -- when we say that a person cannot rent a home in San Francisco on minimum wage, they precisely cannot give their labour at the offered price -- if Zorkman was an actual conservative we could ask him to address that; it would be hilarious).

If no one has or can or will acquire the money to purchase that good or service, there's a contraction in the economy: the good or service is withdrawn.

I think the reason you cannot see how inflation fits into that is you're thinking of inflation in the wrong way. You are thinking of how much a basket of goods costs. We are thinking of relatively how much the good that isn't bought costs. Those are different things, in general. And in any case, we are saying that inflation -- ceteris paribus -- reduces the amount of M in the economy, by reducing its value. It's important to remember that money is not "real". It is virtual and its value is relative.

What jonnyd was (correctly) touching on is that borrowing in the form of private debt amounts to placing a burden on your future self so that you will not able to buy goods or services. This must be compensated by whoever you are indebted to or again there will not be enough money for all goods and services on offer.

My past self didn't want my current self to have too many goods or services. He was just looking out for me.

hm, i just don't want to bring down the thread.

thing is, i know it's useless correcting you or arguing.

so why am i insulting you? there's no good reason for it. it's not worth it.

whatever, Monkey

Bannon GOAT

For the haters, he's a nationalist not a white nationalist. Makes a difference that the media/leftos try to blur as a matter of course.

Bannon will be lucky to be a footnote to history. Goat lol puhleaze