91–97 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true -- inflation can be caused by multiple things, including supply shocks or even future expectations of inflation ("wage price spiral"). It's Econ 101.
Your Econ 101 professor is wrong. The proof is simple. Why did we not have deflation when the supply shocks ended? The value of money is subject to the Law of Supply and Demand like everything else is. Increase the number of dollars, and the value of a dollar goes down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supply chain issues definitely do cause inflation. Don't you remember what happened to car prices when the manufacturers couldn't buy enough chips for them?
Now that they can buy enough, why is there no corresponding drop in car prices and deflation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now that they can buy enough, why is there no corresponding drop in car prices and deflation?
They are: https://news.google.com/search?for=car+prices+dropping&hl=en...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true -- inflation can be caused by multiple things, including supply shocks or even future expectations of inflation ("wage price spiral"). It's Econ 101.
Your Econ 101 professor is wrong. The proof is simple. Why did we not have deflation when the supply shocks ended? The value of money is subject to the Law of Supply and Demand like everything else is. Increase the number of dollars, and the value of a dollar goes down.
If it truly has a single cause ("creating money"), can you show a graph of "money created" vs inflation? I don't see much correlation between ∆M2 and inflation [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve
[2] https://www.longtermtrends.net/m2-money-supply-vs-inflation/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your Econ 101 professor is wrong. The proof is simple. Why did we not have deflation when the supply shocks ended? The value of money is subject to the Law of Supply and Demand like everything else is. Increase the number of dollars, and the value of a dollar goes down.
Probably due to low unemployment [1]. Inflation has multiple causes. If it truly has a single cause ("creating money"), can you show a graph of "money created" vs inflation? I don't see much correlation between ∆M2 and inflation [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve [2] https://www.longtermtrends.net/m2-money-supply-vs-inflation/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would a $1,000 raise at your job have been as devastating? Surely you're not implying $12k/year in Los Angeles (a county with c. $3k/month median rent) is going to create a class of willfully unemployed former foster-kids with no drive? Should we also ban parents sending their kids money for the same reason? Or are foster kids uniquely prone to laziness?
You're proving his point. $1k isn't enough to do anything with, so it's going to get wasted on vice. Go give 1k to a homeless guy...he'll still be homeless, and probably dead thanks to what you enabled. Qualify them for food stamps or something if you want to help. Cash always leads to trouble.
I'm sorry for the double reply, but I really ma horrified.
It's amazing how we live in a country where shelter prices have increased by 50% since 2009 (vs. c.40% for all other items), and yet we still desperately hold onto this idea that homeless people are universally immoral drug addicts.
Beyond that point, we are talking about foster kids here. Everyone immediately jumped to homelessness for whatever reason (they seem to be the social scapegoat du jour).
I think it is completely reasonable for the government to fight inequality by giving people who we know are not receiving any support from their parents a boost in their critical career forming years.
Honestly, $1k/ month could be the difference between going to school part time vs. working full-time. Why does nobody's mind go to this? Why is the assumption that foster kids would never make that choice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because you personally couldn't handle a tiny bit of welfare. If there was a segment of the population who "couldn't handle" welfare, where do you think we would find them?
I think you need to prove there is a population that "can't handle" welfare.