4 ms·

It might be wrong, but he makes a valid argument. And I am right there with it.

• _delirium 15y ago
  It's not an argument; it's a series of assertions about how economics works that are not backed up and incorrect. If you want to state opinions, that's fine, but this isn't religion where you can just invent facts. In particular, nobody who studies the matter argues that all government spending automatically produces inflation; not even Milton Friedman took that line (and empirical data doesn't support it).
  • cobrausn 15y ago
    Nitpick - religion doesn't invent facts, it invents beliefs, many of which are not prove-able (i.e., assertions about 'right' and 'wrong') and many of which can be easily proved or disproved. You can't invent facts, merely discover them. But you already knew that. /pedantic EDIT: Also, I don't think he asserted government spending causes inflation. I think he asserts that government deficit spending causes inflation. Minor difference.
  • nerfhammer 15y ago
    You can model this new, moralistic economics as follows: Some things are bad by nature. These include, inflation, deficit spending, any government spending, forex devaluation, trade deficits, debt, big banks, government loans ranging from bailouts to the discount window. All things that are bad can be thought of as the same thing. Since inflation=bad and government spending=bad, therefore government spending = inflation. There is no need for precise or careful distinct meanings of any "bad" term and can be used interchangeably as a matter of taste. I think that you'll find that this model is simple to understand, has far less complexity or uncertainty than you may be used to and can be a lot of fun, too.