4 ms·

Inflation is pretty key to your argument. If inflation matches the return, you haven't gotten anywhere and everyone would _not_ be wealthier. So putting it bey

Inflation is pretty key to your argument. If inflation matches the return, you haven't gotten anywhere and everyone would _not_ be wealthier. So putting it beyond your argument doesn't really make any sense. > it's not as though more money will make them poorer If I have 1000 dollars today and then have 2000 dollars in 10 years, but the dollar itself has dropped down to below 50% it's initial value, how exactly am I not poorer?

Maursault 4y ago
> Inflation is pretty key to your argument. On the contrary, compounding interest is key to my argument. Inflation is entirely absent in my argument. You introduced inflation to construct your straw man. Promoting fallacy does not make for valid argument. > If I have 1000 dollars today and then have 2000 dollars in 10 years, but the dollar itself has dropped down to below 50% it's initial value, how exactly am I not poorer? I have already addressed this straw man in my previous comment: historically, interest rates always increase to counter inflation. My argument did not mention inflation, but I also kept the interest rate at a flat 5%. If you want to introduce inflation, then I will increase interest rates to counter it, resulting in nullifying your inflation and your straw man argument, twice.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  You don’t seem to understand basic math or finance. It’s true that interest is compounding. Any educated person knows that. And any educated person also knows that inflation is compounding as well. Ignoring inflation is total idiocy. Otherwise you might as well just push the government to add a zero to every denomination. Then there are more dollars in circulation and you don’t need to wait a century. > If you want to introduce inflation, then I will increase interest rates to counter it Your “argument” is basically “I will make up numbers and conditions to match the desired imaginary future I want to see.” You truly are a deep thinker.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    You introduced inflation as a straw man only so that you could attack it. Now you have doubled down twice on your fallacious reasoning, as well as adding to it a few ad hominem attacks. Your reasoning is now dually fallacious, and your dually fallacious argument remains unconvincing.

Maursault 4y ago

> Inflation is pretty key to your argument. On the contrary, compounding interest is key to my argument. Inflation is entirely absent in my argument. You introduced inflation to construct your straw man. Promoting fallacy does not make for valid argument. > If I have 1000 dollars today and then have 2000 dollars in 10 years, but the dollar itself has dropped down to below 50% it's initial value, how exactly am I not poorer? I have already addressed this straw man in my previous comment: historically, interest rates always increase to counter inflation. My argument did not mention inflation, but I also kept the interest rate at a flat 5%. If you want to introduce inflation, then I will increase interest rates to counter it, resulting in nullifying your inflation and your straw man argument, twice.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
You don’t seem to understand basic math or finance. It’s true that interest is compounding. Any educated person knows that. And any educated person also knows that inflation is compounding as well. Ignoring inflation is total idiocy. Otherwise you might as well just push the government to add a zero to every denomination. Then there are more dollars in circulation and you don’t need to wait a century. > If you want to introduce inflation, then I will increase interest rates to counter it Your “argument” is basically “I will make up numbers and conditions to match the desired imaginary future I want to see.” You truly are a deep thinker.
- Maursault 4y ago
  You introduced inflation as a straw man only so that you could attack it. Now you have doubled down twice on your fallacious reasoning, as well as adding to it a few ad hominem attacks. Your reasoning is now dually fallacious, and your dually fallacious argument remains unconvincing.