When is Reality more important than your Political Ideology? With graphs.

You already said you don't care about "philosophical crap", so why do you keep bringing up things like "logic", which is just old stuff used by Greek philosophers? You are always contradicting yourself, but do you even realize it? I doubt it.

And of course they're the same. That's why they're both called "FIAT money". I have to explain basic English to you? Oh yea, look who I'm talking to...

 

And you're a prime example of someone who relies on making flippant and empty comments to draw attention to himself.

 

Nice logical fallacy. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

if you think our current economic system is the same as in the 10th century

you've got another thing coming, it's called reality, the systems are vastly different

no, what i wrote is an important concept

if you don't have a solid foundation in basic economic principles

you can read walrus until the cows come home and still not have a clue what he's talking about

 

So if you and I exchanged the same two items a million times in one day it would equate to more wealth than if we had only transacted once?

But we had more economic growth before progressives hijacked the banking system.

Annualized average growth rate of US GDP 1790-1912: 4.15%

Annualized average growth rate of US GD 1913-2012: 3.26%

They're both called "FIAT money", so that means they're the same thing. I guess you don't know how basic English works.

 

Dismissing people whose ideology you do not share as being childish and stupid does not refute it.

In any case, until something that is actually new comes up in this thread, I see no reason to try to smash though what is obviously your immovable wall of ideology. I shall watch, and observe, and smirk, and chuckle, and lie in wait for something worth responding to, as most of the past 10 pages have been nothing but various forms of "No you're wrong".

 

I didn't say that it was.

What is the fundamental nature of US FIAT money and how does it differ from the FIAT money used in ancient times?

 

see post number 373

and i didn't say you said it was

its value

 

Of course not, those transactions do count towards GDP. Of course you would take it in that silly context.

Yet our standard of living grew significantly more in the 1900s than the 1800s. Maybe they know what they are doing.

You can play your little semantic games. You are really embarrassing yourself. At least you have Spiritus Libertatis liking your posts. That's a good guy to have on your side, lol.

 

You just keep contradicting yourself. You must be in a deep state of denial to behave in such a manner.

Nothing in that post answers my question.

 

The ideology is a childish ideology based on absolutely nothing but ones thoughts. No data, no facts, no math, no understanding, nothing. It's just you thinking these things. That's why education is so important so that people don't believe silly peoples thoughts and actually start understanding things.

- - - Updated - - -

You keep building strawmen. It's your only way to argue your silly ideology that no one in the real world takes seriously.

 

Like I said I'm too lazy to find the numbers, but it is interesting you are ignoring the man who just put up numbers in this thread as well as all the numbers behind Free Market Capitalism that have been used to support it for years. They do exist, you can pick up a free market text and look through the sources. It sounds to me like you either don't want to look at them, or don't want to agree with them even if you have.

Anyway, I'm out of here for now. Maybe I'll look through the source material for my favourite economics texts in my spare time so as to give you specifics next time. For now, tata.

 

Then "more transactions" does NOT "equate to more wealth".

You have not presented a single shred of evidence to substantiate this claim. The real per capita GDP data you keep citing is NOT analogous to "standard of living".

Yes, or maybe this thing called the "industrial revolution" happened.

You're the one play little semantics games. I'm merely using the actual label that's applied to both concepts, FIAT MONEY. You're the one trying to split hairs and quibble.

You may think using proper English is embarrassing...

Pointing out how you constantly contradict yourself is not a "strawman". You don't even know what a strawman is!

 

it shows how the money supply grows and helps create wealth

it also squashes the looney libertarian argument that there's not enough money to pay interest

 

It doesn't "show" that at all. It's just ideological rhetoric.

 

Case in point

 

it's an economic model

 

Like always you come in to the middle of a conversation and take things completely out of context. We are talking about transactions that are counted for in GDP. Glad to see you are still up to your childish ways.

It's a measurement of standard of living by the majority of the economic community. Since it doesn't tell Austrians what they want to hear they just dismiss it.

Yea, which lead to an even bigger need to have an organized and controlled monetary system.

Our fiat money system is different than the 10th century. Does that make you happier child?

You haven't pointed out any contradictions, you are just playing your libertarian word games because you don't have a real argument.

 

And of course, you ignore the rest of the post precisely because I am correct.

That is all. Take it from here, Ethereal.

 

what a joke

 

Nothing you say matters when you admit you don't even look at numbers

 

Not true at all, and it has nothing to do with Austrian economics. Economists do not, and have not for a long long time, used GDP (or real GDP per capita) as a measure of standard of living. They use it as a proxy for standard of living. The concept of a proxy variable comes from statistical inference and it is a variable that is utilized when something is difficult to quantify. It's a variable from which information can be extracted and it needs to be closely correlated to whatever you're trying to quantify.

Ceteris paribus, an increase/decrease in real GDP per capita can signal an increase/decrease in living standards, but it doesn't have to. It says nothing about wealth distribution, asset values, etc, and because it is solely a measure of aggregate production, something like a natural disaster would be positive in terms of GDP (the rebuilding effort would increase GDP) but obviously it would not increase well-being.

 

I disagree, it is widely still used to compare nations standard of living and a great figure to describe the value of a nation's wealth it generated in any given year. And it is true Austrians pick and choose what data they want to accept or not accept. That's why being an Austrian would be so much fun, you just get to make up whatever you want.

 

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. It is what it is. GDP was never meant to be used as a measure of standard of living. It is a proxy and an estimate of the nation's capacity for increasing living standards. But it isn't a direct measure.

I think these two prominent (left-wing) economists sum it up well.

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/501/print/all

 

Lol, how is it not about agreeing or disagreeing when your own link talks about how widely interpreted it is by different economists? Real GDP per capita always will be the measure used to compare the standard of living of a given country. Measuring peoples happiness and mental health is fine but that has nothing to do with a standard of living. Being happy is not a measurement of an individuals capacity to acquire wealth, healthcare, food, etc.