- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
- Messages
- 9,688
- Reaction score
- 14,047
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Because you are comparing to historical data which did not have the kind of high margin / easily replicable technology dominating the marketsFirst, what difference does it make in the context of my point?
Ya, that's why I said this:But, addressing your pont....IT profits didn't begin after 2019, right? I mean, I've been in IT for going on 27 years, and while IT wasn't driving the kinds of profits in the 80's that it is today, it's been a significant sector for at least the past 20 years?
Info tech is a high margin business compared to "legacy" sectors. Not sure comparing corporate earnings at large prior to say 2005 is useful, unless you split by sector
Oh it absolutely can. Post 2019/COVID period has been driven massively by tech investment, graphics cards, digital currency, AI research, data centers... look at the PE ratios & market caps of the top 10 companies in the SP500So the radical difference between the pre and post 2019 period cannot be explained away by the effect info tech has had on the economy when it comes to corporate profits driving inflation.
Sure, it's possible it's all due to "greed" and not the trillions $$$ that diluted the money supply (along with the inability for suppliers to ramp as quickly as demand did after the shutdown). But you are going to need to do better to prove your claim than comparing 80s/90s data.Input costs are a reflection of inflation, in the first two years of Covid, we see input costs up 11.5% over the 79-19 average, but corporate profits is over 40% compared to the 79-19 average.
It's greed.
Let me know when you want to address what I said, instead of claiming I didn't need to explain something rather than demonstrating it.Will your condescending or you're incompetent you spent half of that post very long-winded verbose unnecessary posts explaining something to me that you didn't need to explain.
I want you to use facts and data, not just assert that debt is debt and it's bad end of story. Prove it.Unless of course you want to pretend that it's more complicated than it is
Yes $8,000
First, I hope no one buys cars on credit cards.I didn't need to borrow the money because I already had it. I don't live above my means so I don't need to float float $35,000 credit card debt
You think my posts are verbose now, if I have to explain everything to you it's going to get worse. Even if you've never seen or ridden a subway in person, you know they exist and how they work, right?I don't think I'm within a thousand miles of a Subway so no unless you're talking about the sandwich shop
No idea what that means.Typically big city works like that get government funding.
So show us the data.Oh it absolutely can. Post 2019/COVID period has been driven massively by tech investment, graphics cards, digital currency, AI research, data centers... look at the PE ratios & market caps of the top 10 companies in the SP500
So show us the data.
You're making a straw man fallacy I never said don't ever borrow money not against borrowing if you don't have it and you need something like a car or a computer.Let me know when you want to address what I said, instead of claiming I didn't need to explain something rather than demonstrating it.
I want you to use facts and data, not just assert that debt is debt and it's bad end of story. Prove it.
I asked if you ever bought a car...
First, I hope no one buys cars on credit cards.
As far as your car.
Let's walk though this. Let me show you how borrowing $8000 for car can be better than saving for it.
Now, let's say you don't have a job, any money or a car.
But what you do have is a marketable skill and good credit.
So without $8000 to buy your car, how do you earn $8000? And when I say you, I don't necessary mean you, I want you to think of an average person.
How many good paying jobs are there close by? For most people, there aren't many, so now you'd have to arrange alternative transportation, for most people that means spending money. When I went into DC the train cost $280 a month.
So instead of buying a car on credit, you limit your opinions to take a job you can reach without a car, and incur whatever expense to get there. Now, look, maybe you live and work on a farm, good for you, but that's not the case for the vast majority of people, nor is it realistic to expect that each person shouldn't go into debt.
For most people we drive to work because the cost of doing so is outweighed by the extra money we can make traveling to work. Thus not taking the loan to buy a car, could cost you earnings and time. Decrease your standard of living all because you think that having debt or paying interest is bad by definition. So most of us finance the car, our spending adds to the economy, drives demand and creates job opportunities. In the end we own the car and now have something of value would could sell, or we can use to go to the store, the doctor, the gym and work.
Thus incurring debt can be a net positive for a person buying a car and refusing to buy the car can cost you opportunity and income.
You think my posts are verbose now, if I have to explain everything to you it's going to get worse. Even if you've never seen or ridden a subway in person, you know they exist and how they work, right?
No idea what that means.
You obviously don't want to debate the topic. Come back when you're ready. I'll be here.Instead of focusing on winning the debate pay attention to what I say.
I don't want to defend your straw man it's not my point.You obviously don't want to debate the topic.
I'll never be ready to defend your strawman. I stand by my position.Come back when you're ready. I'll be here.
Define the "strawman" for me?I'll never be ready to defend your strawman. I stand by my position.
Misrepresenting an opponent's argument creating a man of straw proverbially to then attack and declare victory.Define the "strawman" for me?
All I said about it was if you can afford to pay for something with the money you have now don't borrow any money to do that because it just cost you more in the long run.
Especially when the solution to needing more money is printing more that just devalues it.
A credit card is just borrowing it's not creating currency it's creating debt.
When the price of goes up it's because the dollar's value goes down
A credit card is just borrowing it's not creating currency it's creating debt.
Debt doesn't create money. It's just borrowing.
You're trying to obscure reality by pretending it's more complicated than it is.
Printing money would be printing currency. Printing currency doesn't make any more value it just divides it up more
If inflation doesn't happen because of commodities we have a fiat currency.
No it's like saying I've made a pie and I've cut it into four pieces now I'm going to cut it into 50 pieces so that means there's more pie.
Currency isn't value it represents value.
That's so incredibly dishonest.Cherry picking statistics is dishonesty 101.
You acted as though I said all dept was bad.Thank you for taking the time to clarify. That said, that's not all you said and it wasn't what I was responding to. For example (in no particular order);
Everything you said in these quotes is wrong and I think justifies my statement. When I try to explain why I think it's wrong, you obfuscate, deflect, ignore or accuse my of stramaning your position. Regardless, you didn't just say " if you can afford to pay for something with the money you have now don't borrow any money to do that because it just cost you more in the long run." Further, that's not always true. Often borrowing can make make make (or save) more money than it costs.
I've tried establishing a few apriori facts, the kinds of things that are true without evidence, but I cannot even get you to acknowledge simple uncontroversial economic facts. If we cannot get past these points then we need to see if we're somehow misunderstanding what the other means, or we can show why the other person is mistaken.
Here are a few facts for you to consider:
1. Debt creates an asset and a liability
2. Debt is the result of a need or desire to consume
3. One persons consumption is another persons revenue
4. Debt based economies are not constrained by money, but rather potential productivity, in this way debt based economies are more elastic and more agile than reasonably fixed commodity standards.
5. Debt can generate more value than the cost of the debt
6. Creating currency does not always cause prices to rise (or the value of the dollar to decline) and can easily be demonstrated in the economic data.
That's so incredibly dishonest.
I did mention how energy correlates to inflation but did not post the data because I anticipated your accusation of Cherry Picking, so I said;
"Tell you what, you define the metric that defines "currency creation" and I'll find the statistics and show you how prices and currency creation do not correlate."
Cherry Picking is when I chose a metric that agrees with my position and ignore contrary data. I asked you to choose the statistics and I would show in the data that you are mistaken and give you the opportunity to tell me why I'm wrong.
Let me get this straight, your going to cry and whine about how I'm misrepresenting you so I show you exactly what I'm responding to, and how in turn you how dishonest your being, your going to cry and play the victim?I didn't read your post I don't care what you have to say.
You made a straw man you failed the recognize it you gave me a shit test that I aced by the way and you double down on your straw man.Let me get this straight,
You made a straw man you failed the recognize it you gave me a shit test that I aced by the way and you double down on your straw man.
All you need to get straight is I don't care what you have to say the conversation is over.
You could run your mouth. Type your excuses until you acknowledge that you misrepresented by argument it's just noise
Don't cry, just quit with the bad faith. It suggests you don't really have a firm grasp on the topics you discuss.
Says the guy who, when he was called out for his dishonesty and instead of addressing it like a man, picked up his toys and went home.Don't cry, just quit with the bad faith. It suggests you don't really have a firm grasp on the topics you discuss.
Oh so now you're questioning my masculinity. I always love that. I'm an openly gay man I'm very comfortable in my masculinity thank youSays the guy who, when he was called out for his dishonesty and instead of addressing it like a man, picked up his toys and went home.
You first.Come on guy, come join the adults.
According to the BLS inflation calculator $1 in January 1970 is equivalent to $8.55 today.A buck sixty in 1970 is nowhere close to $38 an hour. More like $15.
According to the BLS inflation calculator $1 in January 1970 is equivalent to $8.55 today.
Of course this varies depending in what’s being purchased. Certain segments have seen more inflation, others less.
I said a buck sixty, not a dollar. A $1.60 would actually be closer to $13.50 today. I was off by about a, uh, buck fifty.According to the BLS inflation calculator $1 in January 1970 is equivalent to $8.55 today.
Of course this varies depending in what’s being purchased. Certain segments have seen more inflation, others less.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?