You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] CanIHazPhD ago 

You say my explanation on why it's easier to pick up a gold nugget from the ground than dig a mile into the earth or get oil from a shallow reservoir than from shale is sorely lacking and then you post this

I just did. The investments you caused into being simply cannot be profitable at the higher interest, thus raising interest rates causes a recession.

Also your "explanation" does not fit reality, look at the interest rate from 1946-1981, it has the greatest rise since 1800, from ~3% to ~10% Interest, and look at gdp growth for those same years GDP growth, no recession. Now, if you look at 1920 to 1946, interest rates had a slow but steady decline and you have a recession. If you look at 2000-2016 you'll see a sharp decline, and there is another recession. Exactly the opposite of what you state.

I'm starting to see that you are just covering your ears and going "nah nah nah, I can't hear you".

0
0

[–] ForTheUltimate ago  (edited ago)

why it's easier to pick up a gold nugget from the ground than dig a mile into the earth or get oil from a shallow reservoir than from shale is sorely lacking and then you post this

Stop being retarded. The question isn't how it's easier to pick a gold nugget. the question is how that explains your conclusion that a long run growing and deflationary economy is only possible with easy gold nuggets to pick.

Also your "explanation" does not fit reality, look at the interest rate from 1946-1981, it has the greatest rise since 1800, from ~3% to ~10% InterestPNG, and look at gdp growth for those same years GDP growthPNG

This doesn't disprove my theory. There were simply not enough malinvestments to overcome growht opportunities.

Now, if you look at 1920 to 1946, interest rates had a slow but steady decline and you have a recession.

This again does not disprove my theory. My theory doesn't say that falling interest rates prevent all recessions.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart

Please find me a better source.

I'm starting to see that you are just covering your ears and going "nah nah nah, I can't hear you".

Even if it were true that's a lot better than what you're doing.

If you look at 2000-2016 you'll see a sharp decline, and there is another recession. Exactly the opposite of what you state.

Now this is completely disengenious. I know have the intellectually moral duty to disbelieve your claim about 1920-1946 given that interest rates rose from 1% to 4%+ from 2000 to 2007.

Atleast I am not a lying coward.

0
0

[–] CanIHazPhD ago 

Stop being retarded. The question isn't how it's easier to pick a gold nugget. the question is how that explains your conclusion that a long run growing and deflationary economy is only possible with easy gold nuggets to pick.

I already explained why a big increase in production leads to deflation and why the so called golden century had a boom in production due to abundance of resources. And I never said that's the only possibility, just that the explanation for that case is the abundance of resources. This also explains why it hasn't happened again nor in any other place.

This doesn't disprove my theory. There were simply not enough malinvestments to overcome growht opportunities.

Prove it.

Please find me a better source.

Show that the source has a problem first. Just because data doesn't fit your pre conceived ideas doesn't mean you can say "the source is wrong"

Even if it were true that's a lot better than what you're doing.

It is true, and it's not better.

Now this is completely disengenious. I know have the intellectually moral duty to disbelieve your claim about 1920-1946 given that interest rates rose from 1% to 4%+ from 2000 to 2007. Atleast I am not a lying coward.

Here it's a zoom on the period from 1952 to about the present, you can see spikes around 1988, 1994 and 2004, amongst a notorious downwards trend. Explain why the 2000-2007 period would be so different from the others, or why should we look at a small hike in a 3 year period (the hike happened between 2003 and 2006, from 2000-2003 it was actually a reduction) instead of the overall trend.