True or False? Inflation devalues wages.

Derivatives literally have nothing to do with this, it is a really basic elementary equation that children can understand. Haha.

dO/dt = dM/dt + dV/dt - dP/dt
dO/dt = 3 - dP/dt

Please apologize immediately.

 

Glass-Steagal did require sufficient liquid assets backing risk, which while separate from banks' lending polcies, does have an effect on policies. Consider that gutting Glass-Steagal, making credit default swaps legal, resulted in an environment in which larger banks bought loan packages from mortgage lenders, with over 70% of the loans not meeting their lending criteria, which in turn darn near brought down the world economy.

We need banking regs, and not merely self-regulating lending policies, IMO.

 

dO/dt = dM/dt + dV/dt - dP/dt
dO/dt = 3 - dP/dt

100 out of 100 high school children would say dM/dt + dV/dt = 3. 3 is a constant in dO/dt = 3 - dP/dt.

You might be the only adult in America that doesn't understand this.

- - - Updated - - -

In the real world, a bank's lending is not normally constrained by the amount of excess reserves it has at any given moment. Rather, loans are made, or not made, depending on the bank's credit policies

 

This is meaningless considering I've been spending days and pages trying to explain the fundamental concepts of Calculus to you. It's amazing how often I see severely undereducated people who don't realize how undereducated they actually are, and yet they proclaim themselves to be extremely educated and intelligent over others.

 

You are making up your own calculus.

dO/dt = dM/dt + dV/dt - dP/dt
dO/dt = 3 - dP/dt

100 out of 100 high school children would say dM/dt + dV/dt = 3. 3 is a constant in dO/dt = 3 - dP/dt.

You might be the only adult in America that doesn't understand this.

 

Yes they do. All of the variables in the equation are derivatives.

That doesn't prove that M and V=3 is anywhere in that equation. dM/dt + dV/dt = 3 is not M + V =3. Either show me where in my equation I defined M and V = 3, admit you're lying about my position, or shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't prove that M and V=3 is anywhere in that equation. dM/dt + dV/dt = 3 is not M + V =3. Either show me where in my equation I defined M and V = 3, admit you're lying about my position, or shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't prove that M and V=3 is anywhere in that equation. dM/dt + dV/dt = 3 is not M + V =3. Either show me where in my equation I defined M and V = 3, admit you're lying about my position, or shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

Lol, you are taking the literal expression of M and V = 3. It was a shortcut so I didn't have to type out dM/dt + dV/dt = 3 every single time. And you knew that. But now you are going to back peddle and say I meant something else by that. Lol. The point is you are defining a constant in your equation... which leads you to the false conclusion that a rise in price puts downward pressure on output.

I tried to tell you a hundred times that you have no clue what you were talking about, but then you went in to engineering, calculus, derivatives, etc, etc... all to try to come up with some way to back your failed ideology that inflation is bad. Hahahahaha... it's such a simple equation. Even freshman in high school understand you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

No I didn't. Anybody who is as intelligent and educated as you claim to be would never do such a thing. Your level of education is obvious to anybody who has taken Calculus courses.

I wouldn't say you meant something else. I think you were being entirely honest. I just think you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and you try to make it look like you do.

It's not a false conclusion at all. The equation speaks for itself:

dO/dt = dM/dt + dV/dt - dP/dt
dO/dt = 3 - dP/dt

When prices increase, dP/dt > 0. So set it to a positive number like 1: dO/dt=1.
When prices are constant, dP/dt = 0. dO/dt = 3.
When prices decrease, dP/dt < 0. So set it to a negative number like -1: dO/dt = 4.

dO/dt, or the rate of change of output, is lower when prices are increasing than it is when prices are constant or decreasing. That means that output does not go as high when prices are increasing as it would have otherwise gone had prices been constant or decreasing. The reason is because increasing prices put downward pressure on the rate of change of output.

Not only does the math support it, but it's basic logic and common sense. Everybody benefits from decreasing prices and increasing economic output. Increasing prices cause the economy to not grow as fast as it would if prices were constant or decreasing. The reason is because increasing prices put downward pressure on the rate of change of output.

More meaningless self-righteous bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from the resident fratboy troll.

 

If your wages doesn't go up at a matching rate of the inflation then you lose...average wage in 1966 was $6,900 and today it's $31,900

 

None of what you said is real calculus. M and V is also M+V, shortcut for dM/dt + dV/dt. That was well established at the beginning of the conversation and you know this.

So you are telling me in your equation... dM/dt + dV/dt = 3 is not true? Haha

This is the actual equation
dO/dt = dM/dt + dV/dt - dP/dt

This is an equation where you define a constant
dO/dt = 3 - dP/dt

When you turn dM/dt + dV/dt in to a constant. But in the real world they are not constant and they vary just like P and O. So you can't say an increase in price puts downward pressure on output. You have to say if dM/dt + dV/dt remain the same and price increases that puts downward pressure on output. Basically all you are doing is changing the equation to try to push your failed ideology.

The math supports it when you set dM/dt + dV/dt as a constant. Otherwise, this has nothing to do with the real world.

The fact you can't understand this is absolutely hilarious! One of the funnier convos I've been in. I doubt you even went to community college, you really seem very uneducated.

 

Sure. And if there is no inflation and your wages go down you lose. Same thing.

 

Guess we're in agreement...I was in the army post Cold War and promotions/wage increases were lagging due to the downsizing of the military...wages seldom keep up with inflation, usually inflation has caused people to try harder to advance to higher paying jobs...so, to a young person that almost always starts out at lower wages the upward movement seems to overcome inflation if upward mobility is possible.

 

That equation is the growth rate version of the monetary exchange equation. It says nothing about the actual values of M, P, O, or V. It only contains their rates of change (ie their derivatives.)

So just to clarify, what are you claiming?

Are you claiming that the rates of change of M and V in his example are constant? If so, you are right.

Or are you claiming that the actual values of M and V are constant? If so, you are clearly wrong.

 

LMAO!!!

LMAO!!!

Nope, that's not what I'm telling you.

Yes. The quantity (dM/dt + dV/dt) equals a constant in my equation.

Non-sequitor logical fallacy.

Reptitive and wrong.

No, that's what you're going. You're saying M + V = dM/dt + dV/dt, which is completely false.

It doesn't matter what value you set it to, because dP/dt will always be some real number. Plug in any number you want for it, and you'll see that higher numbers cause dO/dt to be lower than what it would be if dP/dt was a lower number. That is because an increase in prices cause a decrease in rate of change of economic output.

You don't even know what Calculus is, otherwise you wouldn't make absurd assertions like M + V = dM/dt + dV/dt. Go back to high school and take Calc 101 and then apologize to me once you understand how wrong you are.

 

We are using MVPO as just shorthand versions of dO/dt and so forth.

In this context it would be the rates of change. He is making M+V = 3 and changing O to come to the conclusion that an increase in O puts downward pressure on P. I'm simply telling him that the only way his theory works is if he defines what M+V is and keeps it constant as he changes O and P.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! He finally admits it. Wow, never saw this day coming.

Do not lie, you know from the very beginning when I was saying M+V I was referring to dM/dt + dV/dt. You know that yet you are lying. That's the sign of a coward.

No it doesn't, are you kidding me?? Hahahahahaha

This is an Internet forum not a math class. One can easily come to the conclusion that I was simply saying M and V to refer to your dM/dt + dV/dt = 3 equation. But, you can be as dishonest as you want. You finally admitted you were wrong. It's a good day in the akphidelt hood!

 

Show me where I denied it, then apologize for your dishonesty when you fail to do so. What I denied was your lie that I made M+V equal to a constant.

No I didn't know that. I made the mistake of assuming that you know Calculus and that you were just being dishonest. I apologize for overestimating your education level and intelligence, and for accusing you of being dishonest.

Yes it does. No I'm not!! Hahahahahaha

So the fact that this isn't a math class excuses you from asserting mathematically false statements? LMAO! Now you sound like dujac!

I did no such thing. More fabricated statements from you.

It's always a good day in your own head when you're so criminally insane that you have zero concept of reality.

 

Someone made the argument that a low, constant level of inflation is beneficial because it encourages workers to seek to improve their incomes and investors to seek to improve their returns. The point has some merit, I thought.

 

I see you are going to cling to lie that when I said M+V I wasn't implying dM/dt + dV/dt so I didn't have to type it out every time. You knew that, I knew that... but you are a dishonest coward, so it's not a surprise that you are going to use that to escape your lunacy. Lol, I've never seen such embarrassing behavior and misuse of mathematics in my life.

 

Lol nice back pedal. Keep living the dream bro

 

He continuously claimed M and V are constant because he's never taken Calculus and didn't realize that dM/dt and dV/dt are not the same as M and V, respectively. Once he figured it out he backpedalled by claiming that he was using M and V as "shorthand" for dM/dt and dV/dt, respectively. Given his past record of dishonesty and changing his initial position once he's proven wrong, I have no reason to believe he is being honest.

 

Speak for yourself. I was doing no such thing.

Either show me where in my equation I defined M and V = 3, admit you're lying about my position, or shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

And I'm simply telling you that you've been proven wrong.

 

Income increases has to OUTPACE prices. If it doesn't, then it's merely inflation.

Still talking about the item itself and not the brand label, huh. You clearly don't understand the nature of substitutions, so I'll dumb it down. In order for a substitution to be considered 'a substitution,' it needs to share a relationship with another good. For example, Coke is a substitution for Pepsi. Margarine is a substitute for butter.

Chicken is not a substitution for beef, lamebrain. Chicken is a poultry. Beef is meat. Poultry is white mean. Beef is red meat. Anyone who is constantly worried about their health, weight or fitness knows which one is better to avoid. Chicken and Beef are not substitutions at all. So in addition to being your economics teacher, I have to be your fitness instructor.

Hedonic Adjustments is a component if the CPI, you rather retarded individual... And learn how to use Strawman before you play the card. Asking a question is not building a strawman.

You said this:

When your favorite goods rice in price and you have to substitute it for a cheaper alternative, the CPI measures that as a 'price decrease.' That has everything to do with the CPI, but you claimed that it doesn't.

Carefully choose your words, as they are used against you ALOT.

Objection: Relevance? What does this have to do with inflation? Nothing. The only people who don't think there is any inflation are the rich. And did you pulled that 6 million figure out of your ass? According to the World Wealth Report, there is only 3,068,000 millionaires in the country. And only 20 million households make over $100,000 according to the Census.

Our unemployment is lower, our economic growth is higher, out competitiveness is greater and our Gross Monthly Average Income in Hong Kong Hong Kong trump that of the United States. Sounds like a better economy to me.

Are you this dumb that you don't even read your own information before you provide it? Would be nice to do before you start spouting nonsense.

TVs, phones and internet service goes other the "Household furnishings and equipment" category of the Housing expenditure, which is still 4%. Clothes and Apparel is 3.8% and Gym Memberships doesn't have a catagory, sor I'm putting it under miscellaneous, of 1.6%. That's still 9.4%, not even close to the 64.7% REAL people are actually spending their money on.

No, it actually refutes you.

The CPI is based on a total family expenditure. It's not based on some nerd electronic expenditures posing as an economic genius on a political forum.

People have iPhones everywhere. They even have iPhones in the Philippines and Thailand. They even have iPhones in China. In it's first fiscal quarter, Apple sold more iPhones to China than in the US third quarters combined: A total of 48 Million. Are you suggesting that China is more wealthy than America.

Sure, you have iPhones, but that doesn't make you rich. Rich is when you have equity. It's when you have net worth. It's when you have savings. This is something more than 77% of Americans DO NOT HAVE.

You need to get your priorities straight.

The basket of goods I used focuses on everyone, as everyone purchases the things in my basket of goods. If you don't eat, that's fine. If you don't have a home, that's fine to. If your a male prostitute who constantly base his life on material possibles and is always living in and out of hotel rooms, that is fine. Don't expect the rest of society to adapt to your vapidness.

Notice the words COST OF LIVING, as I'm sure you'll ignore it.

I don't know why you keep calling me poor. I'm self employed, an established investor, self made entrepreneur and I travel. ALOT. I guess your own poor if you work for your wealth. We can all have it fall into our laps, lamebrain.

And why is being like me so terrible? Because I've established a means of retiring before the age of 35 while you hustle wondering when your next day off is? OH, the horror.

Hey idiot, that's not how online influence works. It's not sole based on followers. Online influence (klout) has to do with the the users favorite topics, quantified by the amount of people the person engages and influences in those topics. Kim Kardashian is not influencetual in the area of economics AT ALL. How do I know this? Because her klout said so. Her top influential topics are Beauty, Hollywood and Celebrities. Typical famous people stuff. My top three influential topics on the other hand are Money, Economics, and Gym. And this to show you how out of my league you really are, I'm going to show you the Top Economic Moments for released today.



I'm number one again. Not surprising. Look who is below me. Robert Reich. Economist who served under the Carter and Ford Administration and was the Secretary of Labor under Clinton. Why is my ranked higher than someone like Robert Reich? Because more people are constantly engaging on the things that I say and more people are influenced by what I have to say in the area of Economics.

In other words, people take me seriously. Not by the amount of followers I have, but how often I influence others and I constantly influence others on a high traffic forum like Twitter. You can even get anyone who aligned with you politically to agree with you on a small traffic political forum like this. It only magnifies how much of a joke you really are.

 

what's funny is that you don't seem to understand what a hypothetical is

i guess that's to be expected from someone that has little formal education

yea, you're number one among idiots that follow the likes of alex jones, glenn beck, gerald celente and other gloom monger liars

[video=youtube;bxt_bEDdTTc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxt_bEDdTTc[/video]

 

They're not influential in the topic of Economics. I've never seen any of their post on the rankings.

Last week I was ranked 10th, but I still ranked higher than Paul Krugman, who was ranked 11th.