Ron paul farwell speech! Very deep and true!

Great. Perfect case in point. Let's look at the whole discussion:

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous: So what about the about the working poor who are making just above minimum wage that will see their real incomes fall due to the combination of inflation and lack of pay increase? To hell with them, right?

Originally Posted by Iriemon: Do something to increase their relative wages. Reverse trickle down. Support unions. Support universal health care and education. You don't support those? To hell with them, right?

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous: What do trickle down, unions, universal healthcare and education have to do with inflation causing worker's incomes to fall when they are not seeing pay increases? Why not just lock inflation to 0% instead?

Originally Posted by Iriemon: They have everything to do with the relative incomes. If you lock inflation a[t] 0% their wages just go down. Because wages and prices will move to parity based upon the supply and demand for labor relative to other things. Basic economics.

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous: Zero percent inflation wouldn't cause their real incomes to go down. Fabrication.

Originally Posted by Iriemon: That is not what I said. Read it again.

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous: Why would their wages "just go down" if inflation was locked at 0%?

Originally Posted by Iriemon: Less demand, less union, less overtime.

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous: Why would there be less demand? Less union -already addressed and is not necessarily true. Why less overtime?

Originally Posted by Iriemon: Less spending, higher productivity, more automation, overshoring.

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous: I agree that at 0% inflation, there would be less spending than there would be under inflation.

Originally Posted by Iriemon: Where did I say that? Quote my exact statement and link, please quote the post where I said "there would be less spending than there would be under inflation." That is just more bull(*)(*)(*)(*) fabrication from you.
​

First, everyone can see, that once again, why you are challenged to post my quote saying what you claimed my position was, in this case ""there would be less spending than there would be under inflation" you once again cannot cite to any post of mine where I said such a thing, proving once again you have simply fabricated my position.

Second, as the thread shows, the discussion we are having relates to your post about "real incomes fall[ing] due to the combination of inflation and lack of pay increase." I say then increase their relative wages. You say why not lock in inflation at 0%? And I say because if inflation is zero then there their wages go down.

Because, as I've wasted waaaay to many hours trying to explain to you, it is their relative pay that is what matters, not inflation. If their real incomes go down, and inflation is -0-, then by definition, their incomes go down. Because if inflation in zero and their real incomes decline, by definition their wages go down.

So then we have your first fabrication of what I said: "Zero percent inflation wouldn't cause their real incomes to go down. Fabrication."

Of course, I never said anything about 0% inflation causing real incomes to go down, nor did I say real incomes. That doesn't even make sense. And after fabricating my position and response, you have the gall to accuse me of fabrication!

So I try to politely inform you: That is not what I said, read it again.

So then you ask, why would their wages go down if inflation was 0%? And I explained what would causes wages to go down. A lower demand for labor due to less spending, like the recession we are in.

Then the second fabriction of my positions: That I agree that "at 0% inflation, there would be less spending than there would be under inflation." I never said anything to suggest that I "agreed" to that.

And having requested you quote where I said that, you utterly failed to provide any such quote, as is always the case.

That's it. You've now fabricated my statements and positions again, and for the last time.

I have never asserted "that if inflation was locked at 0%, that there would be less demand and less overtime in part because there would be less spending." That is an outright, (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lie.

I have never claimed "claim that wages would "just go down" if inflation was locked at 0%." That is an outright (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lie.

As the above record makes perfectly clear, my assertion about wages or incomes going down is where you have 0% inflation and declining real wages or income. Because as apparently everyone with a lick of economics knowlege knows except for Dr. Righteous, if you have declining real wages and 0% inflation, you must, by definition, have declining wages.

I am through with wasting my time with you. Attempts to engage in a honest discussion with you almost always turns into you making up stuff I "assert" and mischaracterizing my positions. It is a waste of time to try to have an honest discussion with you.

If you want to have an honest discussion, and where you will quote with a link my verbatim words every time you reference my statement of position, because you obviously cannot be trusted to charaterize my positions and statements and assertions honestly, let me know.

 

OK. I see the source of confusion. When I asked you: "What do trickle down, unions, universal healthcare and education have to do with inflation causing worker's incomes to fall when they are not seeing pay increases?", you responded: "They have everything to do with the relative incomes. If you lock inflation a[t] 0% their wages just go down. Because wages and prices will move to parity based upon the supply and demand for labor relative to other things. Basic economics."

I thought you were answering my question, implying that inflation being locked at 0% would be the cause of their incomes falling. But that was wrong, it looks like you were actually saying that you could increase their wages via unions, etc. to offset the negative effects of inflation. In that case, the source of all of this confusion is that I thought you answered my question but you actually dodged it and I didn't realize it. I asked you what do they have to do with inflation causing worker's incomes to fall when they are not seeing pay increases. But you responded with what those things have to do with the workers' real incomes, which is completely irrelevant to the question I asked.

So knowing this, my revised response to your statement: "They have everything to do with the relative incomes. If you lock inflation a[t] 0% their wages just go down. Because wages and prices will move to parity based upon the supply and demand for labor relative to other things. Basic economics" is:

If you locked inflation at zero percent, you could still "Reverse trickle down. Support unions. Support universal health care and education" and increase their real incomes more than if you did those things while inflation was 2-3%. So your solution is really just another non-solution.

Stop "trying to explain" this to me, you're insulting my intelligence. I've always understood the concept of purchasing power parity, and for some reason you're assuming that I never did.

Due to a misunderstanding of your responses as explained above.

Absolutely false. Under 0% inflation, real incomes = nominal incomes, so you can say either one.

You never said any such thing. What you actually said was a vague fragment that was absolutely meaningless to me: "Less demand, less union, less overtime", and "Less spending, higher productivity, more automation, overshoring." If you meant to say "a lower demand for labor due to less spending, like the recession we're in", then just say it instead of making me play 20 Questions to try to understand your vaguely asserted position.

But once again, this point is moot because you could still have more unions, etc. with 0% inflation as I said above.

Due to a misunderstanding of your posts as explained above.

Once again you insult my intelligence. I've always understood the concept of purchasing power parity, and for some reason you're assuming that I never did.

Why do you assume that I am intentionally being dishonest? Ever stop to think that you're also to blame for vaguely asserting your position and battling over semantics? There is a perfect example of this above, when you claimed that you said "A lower demand for labor due to less spending, like the recession we are in" when you actually just responded with fragmented sentences like "Less demand, less union, less overtime" and "Less spending, higher productivity, more automation, overshoring". And you also resort to playing games with semantic masturbation as I pointed out in post 215 with a perfect example. If you want people to stop fabricating your positions, then assert them more clearly to begin with.

I await your response to this post and the rest of post 223 that you ignored.

 

I'm in Paul's district as we speak. They got some brand spanking new overpasses and freeways, four new schools with awesome tracks, and all the street signs have pretty logos on it. Roads are finally being patched up, because Texas coastal counties all have poorly-cemented shale. I must say, even though he paid lip service to the people of Galveston he sure brought the Stimulus bacon home really well. The rural counties on the way here outside his district do not have nearly the amenities of where I'm staying.

I need to ask an old friend of mine what Galveston looks like now since he lives there. It's disappointing that Paul didn't push hard for the "Ike dike." They're discussing it in regards to Sandy, which is BS.

 

You have these "confusions" by which you mischaraterize my positions all the time.

So I'm not wasting any more time with your confusions unless you agree to the parameters set forth in my post. http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-speech-very-deep-true-23.html#post1061984479

 

Of course, as long as you agree to assert your positions more clearly so that I don't "mischaracterize" them "all the time". I told you several times that I didn't know what you were talking about and asked to you rexplain yourself but you refused.

 

thread bump

 

duplicate post