This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] ForTheUltimate ago (edited 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.
This doesn't disprove my theory. There were simply not enough malinvestments to overcome growht opportunities.
This again does not disprove my theory. My theory doesn't say that falling interest rates prevent all recessions.
Please find me a better source.
Even if it were true that's a lot better than what you're doing.
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.
[–] CanIHazPhD ago
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.
Prove it.
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"
It is true, and it's not better.
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.
[–] ForTheUltimate ago (edited ago)
lol. What's there to prove? There was not enough recession as you claim.
Anyway I've looked over the data on FRED and I think I'm done here.
I'll just add a little [precision] which I don't think will make any difference for you anyway (even though it's the only excuse I can imagine for you).
Goodbye.