• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Is Your Money Worth.

First, what difference does it make in the context of my point?
Because you are comparing to historical data which did not have the kind of high margin / easily replicable technology dominating the markets

Ya, that's why I said this:

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

....

So 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.
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

You were comparing 80s/90s corporate profits data to modern massively scalable software architectures + massive investments in data centers, as if to somehow prove that it is "greed" driving inflation. My point is your comparison to the 79-19 average is a bad comparison. Most other sectors are fairly well mature & saturated with high competition.

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.
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.
 
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.
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.

Unless of course you want to pretend that it's more complicated than it is
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...
Yes $8,000
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
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.
I don't think I'm within a thousand miles of a Subway so no unless you're talking about the sandwich shop
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?

Typically big city works like that get government funding.
No idea what that means.
 
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.

The chart was created by Josh Bivens is the chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). His areas of research include macroeconomics, inequality, social insurance, public investment, and the economics of globalization. I think he qualifies as a prospective source. Why is he wrong?
 
Last edited:
So show us the data.

Top 10 are all information technology with the exception of berkshire & JP morgan

NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA)
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT)
Apple Inc. (AAPL)
Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN)
Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL/GOOG)
Meta Platforms, Inc. (META)
Broadcom Inc. (AVGO)
Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-B)
Tesla, Inc. (TSLA)
JPMorgan Chase (JPM)
 
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.

Instead of focusing on winning the debate pay attention to what I say.
 
You obviously don't want to debate the topic.
I don't want to defend your straw man it's not my point.

Now if you're upset because it didn't fall for it maybe do a better job disguising it or are you honestly.
Come back when you're ready. I'll be here.
I'll never be ready to defend your strawman. I stand by my position.
 
Define the "strawman" for me?
Misrepresenting an opponent's argument creating a man of straw proverbially to then attack and declare victory.

I never said debt was debt you just went ahead and argued against whoever you invented in your mind that said debt was bad.

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.
 
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.

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);

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.

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 and that's easy to demonstrate if you like.

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. All currency debt is the result of an asset and a liability pair
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 the availability of money (currency), but rather potential/ actual 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.
7. The government's debt are assets to the private sector
8. Dollars and bonds are liabilities of the government and fiscal assets of the private non-government sector.

Cherry picking statistics is dishonesty 101.
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.
 
You acted as though I said all dept was bad.


You acted in bad faith. I won't engage with you. You asked to be what a straw man was. I took your stupid little shit test and aced it. You didn't recognize your fallacy you just acted snotty and stuck up about it because you can't be wrong even though you absolutely are.

I didn't read your post I don't care what you have to say.
 
I didn't read your post I don't care what you have to say.
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?

Seriously bro. Pull up your big boy pants and let us know when you're ready to come sit and talk with the adults.
 
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.

Come on guy, come join the adults.
 
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.
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 you
Come on guy, come join the adults.
You first.
 
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.
 

Still not great compared to the minimum wage in 1970 compared to today.


The U.S. federal minimum wage in 1970 was $1.45 per hour, which, when adjusted for inflation, had a purchasing power equivalent to approximately $11.58 per hour in 2024. In contrast, the current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, a nominal increase from 1970 but a significant real-dollar decrease in purchasing power, making the minimum wage of today worth over 40% less in real terms than its 1970 equivalent.
 
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.

I used $1.60 since that is what the OP used.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…