0
0

[–] ForTheUltimate ago  (edited ago)

Say market set interest rates are at 6%. If you lower them to reach your stupid inflation target, now firms that are only profitable at 5% take and bid up resources used by those at 6%. Translation: ressources are not going from 6% return projects to 5%, and this isn't corrected my natural market forces, because you've artificially suppressed them with lower itnerest rates. The proof is when you idiots raise your interest rates, you get a recession everytime and more surely so, the longer you've fed inefficiency that can't survive without your intervention.

Go ahead and teach me something. Use logic first. You're not going to convince me of a mathematical rule by giving examples, you're going to have to logically demonstrate it always holds.

If you don't want to meet that standard well then fuck you for not even trying.

The only thing holding your delusion is technological improvement increasing productivity faster than you technocrats are destroying it, thus cancelling out a lot of your inflation, for now.

And as I expect you won't reach that standard. You also failed for a mere empiricist when presented with the century long deflation in the Gilded era.

0
0

[–] CanIHazPhD ago 

Your example makes no sense, it's predicated on less profitable companies bidding on equal grounds for resources with more profitable companies. and you think economics is pure math instead of social science...

I realized you were off in your understanding, but didn't realize you were this far gone.

You have one example of (very very low) deflation not fucking up a country and hundreds of examples of deflation fucking upe economies and you hold to it screaming "muh counterexample".

Economics (and all sciences) are based first and foremost on observations. Said observations show that in most cases deflation is worse than inflation. You have one example where that didn't hold, and I already explained why it happened and why it can't happen again.

0
0

[–] ForTheUltimate ago  (edited ago)

Since you can't learn past your level.

Perhahps you can atleast explain why

'' economy based on natural resource exploitation, which is already a thing of the past. It was basically people picking the low hanging fruit, which was plentiful and widespread (agriculture in new lands, cash crops, logging, minerals, oil, etc.), that can't be done again.''

Why that is.

screaming "muh counterexample".

A single counter example disproves your theory. All your other examples do not disprove my theory.

All the good progress in economics tha tI know of was made through logic, not observation. You would be a fool to try empiricism in a science where you cannot run controlled experiments on the scale of your theories. Only a delusional would place empiricism ahead of rationalism.