hm and who spends their money right when the get it...poor people or rich people...

I love Soah's fantasy where the thing that separates poor people from rich people is that rich people put their money in magical "inflation proof" investments while poor people are stashing a ton of money "in a mattress".

But that is the pretty standard liberal conception of what makes someone poor or rich--their "money smarts"

And the middle class?

What about them?

You're pretty freaking dumb for someone who acts like an arrogant asshat all the time. You literally have the explanation here right in your own post and still don't understand it. If poor people didn't spend all of their money right when they got it, they would eventually no longer be poor. With hyperinflation, they are forced to continue spending all of their money as soon as they get it. People who own real estate and businesses are essentially immune to inflation because their profits increase proportionally. But those opportunities aren't available to people who are trying to stash away a hundred dollars here and there.

But again, what do I know about this subject? It's not like I live in a country with high inflation and know people who live paycheck to paycheck. Surely none of them ever talked to me about their experiences. And certainly I never illegally sold dollars to business owners when currency transactions were banned. Nope, those people just had to sit around with all their pesos waiting for them to become worthless... absolutely no way for them to protect their savings.

I think Soah's point is that because he makes his money is in usd that he is able to do that. Or that other rich people have ways of avoiding the effects of inflation.

People who don't have those means are screwed. Your point is they don't have any money to begin with which is why I ask about the middle class.

maybe you should explain this to him a bit more

I was citing what I understand to be your beliefs


you previously opposed the TPP, a voluntary free trade agreement (anti-protectionism), because, iirc, it was imperialistic

I hope you're not coming here arguing like the tpp would have been some great thing. There was a reason why it was opposed across the political spectrum.

how many people opposing it do you think actually read it?


or even demanded from their information-gods a direct quote of the offending language?

BM. Fwiw, you and I agree about the power of the woeking class. I never thought a single person not getting paid should have agreed to come into work this past month.

Today the ATCs of Laguardia showed just how strong a united working force can be. How we get to that unity is the real question.

Does it matter? if the CFR/the entire political class/etc are pushing for something does it take an expert in trade law to know that it won't benefit the people but rather corporations?

Remember how you used that logic to conclude that Donald Trump would obviously be a great president because everyone who knew him was horrified by the thought of it?

I don't mean this as a gotcha, but I'm genuinely curious as to how strongly you still believe that Trump won't invade Venezuela in light of the administration's statements yesterday (which I don't have sitting in front of me right this second). Like what sort of betting line would you establish? 80/20 against?

I think that one of the things that separates poor Venezuelans from wealthy ones is the fact that the country's minimum wage is less than $10 per month.

zero-sum economics, eh?

You understand my beliefs to be imperialism is the same thing as trade? Please

I’ve legitimately explained what imperialism is to you like twenty different times and linked you to multiple relevant texts on the subject. Your willful ignorance on the topic can only really be interpreted as trolling at this point.

I opposed the TPP because it was garbage written by corporations not because I am conceptually opposed to free trade.

Well...I think it will always be the case that "all options are on the table". I don't know what exactly from the administration you're referring to but if it is something like that then I don't give it too much credence because I think that is something that will always be said.

I still don't think you'll see the US get involved but it is hard to be as confident as before since the situation is changing obviously. With almost the entirety of Latin America (not Mexico, Uruguay, a bunch of central American nations) but most of South America recognizing Gaudio there would be some political cover.

But I think there would also be tons of backlash and that you wouldn't see the US acting unless it was something that was coordinated with Colombia and/or Brazil. But it is hard to see that happening either. 4-1 seems good. 5-1 probably better.

This one definitely needs to go in the threads hall of fame. Like this is up there with when Mets talks about how great an idea slavery was.

Fair enough I suppose if we excluded the evidence of the last 40 years.

400

Don't even need to go back to mets for that. You're in here right now supporting $10/month minimum wage. It's weird that my centrist stance of paying people decent money and letting them build savings is so much further to the left than you.

You don’t understand how capitalism works. There is no solution to poverty inside of capitalism. Capitalists will never pay Labor more than is required to reproduce itself. If suddenly poor people had more money than was required for them to get food, clothes, and shelter, capitalists would just pay them less. Not because they are evil, but because that is how capitalism works. It’s a structural inevitability