5 ms·

Prove me wrong. The numbers I see (asset prices and monetary base both going up and up and nothing but up) are in sync with my view.

by TekMol 4y ago

temporalparts 4y ago
Burden of proof should be on the person asserting the claim, not the other way around.
- dymk 4y ago
  The claim being asserted is that the viewpoint is not sophisticated enough (despite it being the commonly held, intuitive belief about inflation). That's the claim that needs to be proven.
yibg 4y ago
Why do people need to prove you wrong? Onus is on you to support your assertions.
- notch656a 4y ago
  That's not how it works. If someone makes a claim, by default they are neither right nor wrong. But once you make the statement a claim is wrong (or "not sophisticated enough") then that person has made an additional assertion. Burden of proof doesn't mean it default to "you're wrong." It means it defaults to "your position is unfounded." To change it to "you're wrong" requires evidence of your own.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > your position is unfounded In the context of an argument, this is the same as wrong. You can't use evidence to refute an unfounded argument; there are no supports to attack.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Having no evidence is not the same as being wrong. For instance, I can claim there is a flying spaghetti monster in heaven watching over us. My argument would be unfounded, with no supports to attack, but an assertion to the contrary would be similarly wrong. There is essentially no way to disprove it. Of course OPs statement is arguably one that is able to be disproven, or at least evidence towards disproving it. Unfortunately, the person claiming it was not sophisticated enough failed to provide that evidence. So in my book, they both made unfounded statements.
      - yibg 4y ago
        If you claim there is a flying spaghetti monster in heaven watching over us, the default position isn't "well maybe it's true maybe it's not, so let's call it 50/50". The default position is that's silly until you can show some evidence.
        notch656a 4y ago
        That's an excellent straw man equating 'unfounded' with '50/50'! Congrats!
  - yibg 4y ago
    You're wrong. Now prove me wrong.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      You're right [that I'm wrong]. Now prove me right.
pessimizer 4y ago
From 2007-8-29 to 2017-8-29, the money supply doubled, while mean inflation was around 1.75%. Couldn't you have easily proved yourself wrong? edit: the date was chosen because of today's date, picking the year before the housing bubble burst as a start, then taking a 10 year period.
- TekMol 4y ago
  Which inflation? From 20007 to 2017, prices of pretty much everything I look at doubled. Shares, gold, coffee (when you order it in a cafe), real estate ... Money lost half of its buying power and you tell me inflation went up by only 1.75%?
  - imtringued 4y ago
    I bet you will argue against land value taxes that would easily solve the problem.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Would you explain how as a potential buyer of raw land it will become more affordable to me with the land value tax? Doesn't that just move part of the cost to taxes instead of up front pricing? One of the ideas kicking around is that there is so much extra low-interest money kicking around that people snapped up real estate with bidding wars, perhaps as an inflation hedge. That one makes sense to me. But discounting the price of real estate through taxation disincentives doesn't make sense, because the one paying the tax is ultimately the property owner(s). So the owner is still paying the price, only now he's splitting the payment check to two entities: he's paying (1) the previous owner and (2)a rent-seeking tax machine enforced by men with guns. Any cost savings would effectively be by turning it into a hybrid ownership, hybrid open ended lease with society being the part owner, and thus could be considered a cheapened form of ownership rather than the same thing for better value. In effect, LVT is saying "land is cheaper... if you're only buying N% of it and society owns the rest." Well of course it's true... but remember you're paying your rent-seeking landlord (government) your annual lease payment on their (100-N)% ownership. Move N to 0, and you now don't have to spend anything on the land, but everyone is a serf to government ownership of land. In effect, LVT is fractional communism of the land, with extremes of N=100% being full individual property rights and N=0% being full communism.
JackFr 4y ago
> 3: Governments will rather use tricks to lower inflation. Change the definition. That is an unsophisticated view. Lowering inflation by 'changing the definition' is like trying to lose weight by switching from pounds to kilos. The measurement is not the thing being measured. Do politicians play around with highlighting different measures? Of course they do - but that is a (ineffective) solution to a political problem not an economic one.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  It's the sort of thing that happens in places like Argentina.
treis 4y ago
Up until Covid we had low and stable inflation dating back to the 80s. It was not going "up and up" except to the extent that we consider moderate inflation to be desirable.
throw0101a 4y ago
> Prove me wrong. Lots of money in Japan, no inflation: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PA7P https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PA7P

Prove me wrong. The numbers I see (asset prices and monetary base both going up and up and nothing but up) are in sync with my view.

by TekMol 4y ago

Prove me wrong. The numbers I see (asset prices and monetary base both going up and up and nothing but up) are in sync with my view.

temporalparts 4y ago

Burden of proof should be on the person asserting the claim, not the other way around.

dymk 4y ago
The claim being asserted is that the viewpoint is not sophisticated enough (despite it being the commonly held, intuitive belief about inflation). That's the claim that needs to be proven.

yibg 4y ago

Why do people need to prove you wrong? Onus is on you to support your assertions.

notch656a 4y ago
That's not how it works. If someone makes a claim, by default they are neither right nor wrong. But once you make the statement a claim is wrong (or "not sophisticated enough") then that person has made an additional assertion. Burden of proof doesn't mean it default to "you're wrong." It means it defaults to "your position is unfounded." To change it to "you're wrong" requires evidence of your own.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > your position is unfounded In the context of an argument, this is the same as wrong. You can't use evidence to refute an unfounded argument; there are no supports to attack.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Having no evidence is not the same as being wrong. For instance, I can claim there is a flying spaghetti monster in heaven watching over us. My argument would be unfounded, with no supports to attack, but an assertion to the contrary would be similarly wrong. There is essentially no way to disprove it. Of course OPs statement is arguably one that is able to be disproven, or at least evidence towards disproving it. Unfortunately, the person claiming it was not sophisticated enough failed to provide that evidence. So in my book, they both made unfounded statements.
    - yibg 4y ago
      If you claim there is a flying spaghetti monster in heaven watching over us, the default position isn't "well maybe it's true maybe it's not, so let's call it 50/50". The default position is that's silly until you can show some evidence.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        That's an excellent straw man equating 'unfounded' with '50/50'! Congrats!
- yibg 4y ago
  You're wrong. Now prove me wrong.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    You're right [that I'm wrong]. Now prove me right.

pessimizer 4y ago

From 2007-8-29 to 2017-8-29, the money supply doubled, while mean inflation was around 1.75%. Couldn't you have easily proved yourself wrong? edit: the date was chosen because of today's date, picking the year before the housing bubble burst as a start, then taking a 10 year period.

TekMol 4y ago
Which inflation? From 20007 to 2017, prices of pretty much everything I look at doubled. Shares, gold, coffee (when you order it in a cafe), real estate ... Money lost half of its buying power and you tell me inflation went up by only 1.75%?
- imtringued 4y ago
  I bet you will argue against land value taxes that would easily solve the problem.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Would you explain how as a potential buyer of raw land it will become more affordable to me with the land value tax? Doesn't that just move part of the cost to taxes instead of up front pricing? One of the ideas kicking around is that there is so much extra low-interest money kicking around that people snapped up real estate with bidding wars, perhaps as an inflation hedge. That one makes sense to me. But discounting the price of real estate through taxation disincentives doesn't make sense, because the one paying the tax is ultimately the property owner(s). So the owner is still paying the price, only now he's splitting the payment check to two entities: he's paying (1) the previous owner and (2)a rent-seeking tax machine enforced by men with guns. Any cost savings would effectively be by turning it into a hybrid ownership, hybrid open ended lease with society being the part owner, and thus could be considered a cheapened form of ownership rather than the same thing for better value. In effect, LVT is saying "land is cheaper... if you're only buying N% of it and society owns the rest." Well of course it's true... but remember you're paying your rent-seeking landlord (government) your annual lease payment on their (100-N)% ownership. Move N to 0, and you now don't have to spend anything on the land, but everyone is a serf to government ownership of land. In effect, LVT is fractional communism of the land, with extremes of N=100% being full individual property rights and N=0% being full communism.

JackFr 4y ago

> 3: Governments will rather use tricks to lower inflation. Change the definition. That is an unsophisticated view. Lowering inflation by 'changing the definition' is like trying to lose weight by switching from pounds to kilos. The measurement is not the thing being measured. Do politicians play around with highlighting different measures? Of course they do - but that is a (ineffective) solution to a political problem not an economic one.

cryptonector 4y ago
It's the sort of thing that happens in places like Argentina.

treis 4y ago

Up until Covid we had low and stable inflation dating back to the 80s. It was not going "up and up" except to the extent that we consider moderate inflation to be desirable.

throw0101a 4y ago

> Prove me wrong. Lots of money in Japan, no inflation: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PA7P https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PA7P