You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] ForTheUltimate ago  (edited ago)

You completely missed the point. You need to breakdown the elements into more detail. but go ahead retard. You failed at intermediate micro-economics. you confuse the change in demand for something with the supply of money as one thing. Then you confuse money with real things. all that because your simpleton brain can't deal with more variables. or rather because you lack the morality and curiosity to find the truth.

0
0

[–] CanIHazPhD ago 

ahahaha you are funny. Your points got demolished, so I didn't understand and I'm a retard xD

I confuse money with real things? That's exactly why I'm arguing that you have to look at actual labor value and not inflation.

Where exactly did I confuse the change in demand with the supply of money?

Yeah, I lack the curiosity to find the truth, tell me earth is flat now ahahaha

0
0

[–] ForTheUltimate ago  (edited ago)

lets do a turing test. can you explain my point back to me? hahahaha. nigger you're not learning anything. I got A+ in every single econ course ever, you basic simpletons are no match.

I do however remember a question back when I was as temporarily retarded as you that I failed. and I failed it for the same reason you are failing now. The question was, how do you stopa recession? and I gave the keynsian answer. hahahaha

Where exactly did I confuse the change in demand with the supply of money?

you wouldn't have confused it had you been able to realize duh. I would just read it over and if no light bulb, then just give up.

It was here:

freeing up ressources for other consumption and investment. By no longer bidding up prices of factors, other users have increased supply available to them.

Completely the opposite, you reduce hiring and r&d and supply immediately follows the downward spiral.