3 ms·

> If what you want to say is that you think the government is run by a shadowy cabal of elites whose main purpose is to impoverish the common man, then just say

> If what you want to say is that you think the government is run by a shadowy cabal of elites whose main purpose is to impoverish the common man, then just say that. I’m not sure why I would need to go that far afield when I can just deal with the actual words spoken by actual economists where they literally say this with slighty obscurant language. This isn’t a “shadowy cabal,” its mainstream media and economics here. If the actual intent of economic policy is so threatening to your worldview that you need to poison the well by invoking shadowy conspiracies, perhaps you should re-evaluate your own perspective on the issue. > I'm just going to call you a conspiracy theorist because it's probably not worth arguing with you, and "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it." Yeah it would probably require an infinite amount of energy to refute my assertions, since they are actually true. And I think we are beyond considering the existence of the central bank to be a “conspiracy theory”, it’s kind of established.

AngrySkillzz 6y ago
ok let me be more polite: source??? If you think your assertions are "actually true" then back them up. edit: and let's be clear about who has poisoned the well here. You poisoned the well. You decided to go on HN and insinuate that governments are purposefully devaluing working class people's salaries to make their lives worse. An assertion that you provided with no evidence. And you expect that you can just post stuff like that without getting called out! Ridiculous.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > ok let me be more polite: source??? Other than the quotes from the op that started this thing, you can go read the NYT resident economist Paul Krugman on “sticky wages” and inflation. Its paywalled (so I won’t provide a link) but should be the first results on any search engine. > If you think your assertions are "actually true" then back them up. This comment thread started because the first thing I quoted was an economist asserting this in obscurant language. I suggest you re-read from the beginning.
  - AngrySkillzz 6y ago
    Hi yes I know quite a bit about sticky wages and inflation. What's your point.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > What's your point. Should be obvious from the discussion, especially for someone who “knows quite a bit” about the subject. > Hi yes I know quite a bit about sticky wages and inflation. Then why did you ask me for a source for a statement that is well understood among anyone who has studied the subject? Krugman’s statements to this effect are so well-known as to have been written about in other publications. Back to the original statement: Is it that hard to say “we think wages among the working class are too high so the central bank depreciates the currency”? well is it?
      - AngrySkillzz 6y ago
        You are purposefully ignoring the normal explanation, which is this: because wages are sticky, firms that need to cut costs in a recession are more likely to lay off people than they are to give pay cuts. Inflation helps to weaken that rigidity so that job losses are not as large. Maybe you know that. You claim that central banks depreciate the currency because they "think wages among the working class are too high." But rhetorically, you are doing more than just referring to the explanation I gave above. You are implying that central banks "think" working class wages are too high, and want to lower them to hurt working class people. Which is the opposite of the standard explanation - the purpose of inflation in that instance is to implicitly reduce the downward rigidity of wages so that employment does not contract as much in a downturn. Presumably you, champion of the working class, would rather more people be unemployed?
        dang 6y ago
        Would you please stop doing ideological flamewar on HN? This one was just over the top. You've posted a ton of these and it's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

AngrySkillzz 6y ago

ok let me be more polite: source??? If you think your assertions are "actually true" then back them up. edit: and let's be clear about who has poisoned the well here. You poisoned the well. You decided to go on HN and insinuate that governments are purposefully devaluing working class people's salaries to make their lives worse. An assertion that you provided with no evidence. And you expect that you can just post stuff like that without getting called out! Ridiculous.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> ok let me be more polite: source??? Other than the quotes from the op that started this thing, you can go read the NYT resident economist Paul Krugman on “sticky wages” and inflation. Its paywalled (so I won’t provide a link) but should be the first results on any search engine. > If you think your assertions are "actually true" then back them up. This comment thread started because the first thing I quoted was an economist asserting this in obscurant language. I suggest you re-read from the beginning.
- AngrySkillzz 6y ago
  Hi yes I know quite a bit about sticky wages and inflation. What's your point.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > What's your point. Should be obvious from the discussion, especially for someone who “knows quite a bit” about the subject. > Hi yes I know quite a bit about sticky wages and inflation. Then why did you ask me for a source for a statement that is well understood among anyone who has studied the subject? Krugman’s statements to this effect are so well-known as to have been written about in other publications. Back to the original statement: Is it that hard to say “we think wages among the working class are too high so the central bank depreciates the currency”? well is it?
    - AngrySkillzz 6y ago
      You are purposefully ignoring the normal explanation, which is this: because wages are sticky, firms that need to cut costs in a recession are more likely to lay off people than they are to give pay cuts. Inflation helps to weaken that rigidity so that job losses are not as large. Maybe you know that. You claim that central banks depreciate the currency because they "think wages among the working class are too high." But rhetorically, you are doing more than just referring to the explanation I gave above. You are implying that central banks "think" working class wages are too high, and want to lower them to hurt working class people. Which is the opposite of the standard explanation - the purpose of inflation in that instance is to implicitly reduce the downward rigidity of wages so that employment does not contract as much in a downturn. Presumably you, champion of the working class, would rather more people be unemployed?
      - dang 6y ago
        Would you please stop doing ideological flamewar on HN? This one was just over the top. You've posted a ton of these and it's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html