Understanding Leftist Mentality

[Hittanryan]

There's a difference between reading a graph and interpreting a graph. I'm not sure you appreciate this difference. Do you know what deflation does? You know, that thing that hasn't happened since the 1930s? It makes prices fall. When prices fall, wages fall. When wages fall, demand falls. When demand falls, prices fall. And so on and so forth.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/214198- ... -deflation

Sometimes but not always.

I don't see the conditions of the Industrial Revolution being reproduced in the immediate future.

[Amacia]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/214198- ... -deflation

Sometimes but not always.

I don't see the conditions of the Industrial Revolution being reproduced in the immediate future.

Why would it have to be on that scale? it could be any productivity boom.

[Rick Rollin]

Then why did we switch? Because what you are saying is a lie.

Because having an elastic money supply is an easy way to tax people without them knowing it since taxes are generally unpopular.

Proof?

Stable?
(Image)

Don't make me laugh.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/260900- ... old-bubble

You can't read a graph? All I see after gold standard is inflation with no deflation. Hah, you just posted a graph that hurts your own assumptions.

Find a graph that measures value of USD to gold and you will see the inflation.

Extreme inflation is only bad because it is extreme. Not because inflation is inherently evil.

Still trying to figure out why deflation is considered a good thing. I mean, if prices are dropping by the day, consumer spending will drastically slow as people wait for it to hit bottom.

It benefits creditors and people with money. Exactly whom the conservatives like.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Because having an elastic money supply is an easy way to tax people without them knowing it since taxes are generally unpopular.

Proof?

Here, let me explain because it's really quite simple. They're printing dollars in order to fund government programs and other loans, no? As they print those dollars there is an increase in the money supply which means demand for the dollar lowers. Increase supply=lower demand, which means lower value for the dollar and the value deducted from the dollar or whatever fiat currency is a tax on a nations citizens. It also is the very same reason that prices go up, which hurt people. Yes, I know it's hard to believe but more expensive products hurt the lower and middle class the most.(the last bit was sarcasm by the way)

You can't read a graph? All I see after gold standard is inflation with no deflation. Hah, you just posted a graph that hurts your own assumptions.

Find a graph that measures value of USD to gold and you will see the inflation.

Extreme inflation is only bad because it is extreme. Not because inflation is inherently evil.

Still trying to figure out why deflation is considered a good thing. I mean, if prices are dropping by the day, consumer spending will drastically slow as people wait for it to hit bottom.

It benefits creditors and people with money. Exactly whom the conservatives like.

Now this is where I really start to question the intent behind leftism because 1. Why wouldn't some one want prices to be lower? since it obviously benefits us all. 2. Why wouldn't you want consumer spending to slow down? Since savings(if they aren't spending and they're holding their money then they're by definition saving) increase the availability of credit that can be invested into infrastructure. Oh wait now I get leftism was never about the people in the first place it was about elitism and the premise that people are too dumb to make decisions on their own.

Monetary deflation as far as the dollar is concerned is good thing because prices are cheaper and people with lower incomes can afford to purchase more stuff, it's a raise in the standard of living.

[Hydesland]

Here, let me explain because it's really quite simple. They're printing dollars in order to fund government programs and other loans, no?

No.

As they print those dollars there is an increase in the money supply which means demand for the dollar lowers.

No.

Now this is where I really start to question the intent behind leftism because 1. Why wouldn't some one want prices to be lower? since it obviously benefits us all. 2. Why wouldn't you want consumer spending to slow down? Since savings(if they aren't spending and they're holding their money then they're by definition saving) increase the availability of credit that can be invested into infrastructure.

You're confusing supply side deflation (productivity boom), with demand side deflation (demand is so weak and incomes so low that firms are forced to cut prices just to stay afloat, causing mass unemployment and bankruptcies in the process).

[Khadgar]

Proof?

Here, let me explain because it's really quite simple. They're printing dollars in order to fund government programs and other loans, no? As they print those dollars there is an increase in the money supply which means demand for the dollar lowers. Increase supply=lower demand, which means lower value for the dollar and the value deducted from the dollar or whatever fiat currency is a tax on a nations citizens. It also is the very same reason that prices go up, which hurt people. Yes, I know it's hard to believe but more expensive products hurt the lower and middle class the most.(the last bit was sarcasm by the way)

You can't read a graph? All I see after gold standard is inflation with no deflation. Hah, you just posted a graph that hurts your own assumptions.

Find a graph that measures value of USD to gold and you will see the inflation.

Extreme inflation is only bad because it is extreme. Not because inflation is inherently evil.

Still trying to figure out why deflation is considered a good thing. I mean, if prices are dropping by the day, consumer spending will drastically slow as people wait for it to hit bottom.

It benefits creditors and people with money. Exactly whom the conservatives like.

Now this is where I really start to question the intent behind leftism because 1. Why wouldn't some one want prices to be lower? since it obviously benefits us all. 2. Why wouldn't you want consumer spending to slow down? Since savings(if they aren't spending and they're holding their money then they're by definition saving) increase the availability of credit that can be invested into infrastructure. Oh wait now I get leftism was never about the people in the first place it was about elitism and the premise that people are too dumb to make decisions on their own.

Monetary deflation as far as the dollar is concerned is good thing because prices are cheaper and people with lower incomes can afford to purchase more stuff, it's a raise in the standard of living.

Let me explain, small words. If people not spend money. Economy slow down. Slow economy cause job loss. Job loss cause pain.

A demonstration, from history:

Code: Select all

1933   -9.79 %   -9.93 %   -10.00 %   -9.35 %   -8.03 %   -6.62 %   -3.68 %   -2.22 %   -1.49 %   -0.75 %   0.00 %   0.76 %   -5.09 %
1932   -10.06 %   -10.19 %   -10.26 %   -10.32 %   -10.46 %   -9.93 %   -9.93 %   -10.60 %   -10.67 %   -10.74 %   -10.20 %   -10.27 %   -10.30 %
1931   -7.02 %   -7.65 %   -7.69 %   -8.82 %   -9.47 %   -10.12 %   -9.04 %   -8.48 %   -9.64 %   -9.70 %   -10.37 %   -9.32 %   -8.94 %
1930   0.00 %   -0.58 %   -0.59 %   0.59 %   -0.59 %   -1.75 %   -4.05 %   -4.62 %   -4.05 %   -4.62 %   -5.20 %   -6.40 %   -2.66 %
1929   -1.16 %   0.00 %   -0.58 %   -1.17 %   -1.16 %   0.00 %   1.17 %   1.17 %   0.00 %   0.58 %   0.58 %   0.58 %   0.00 %

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/ ... ation.aspx

See how in 1929 inflation stopped? See how in 1930 deflation started? See how in 1931 deflation increased? Do you recall, perhaps, what that era was called? A controlled inflation is a sign of a healthy economy, deflation means your economy is about to dive.

Code: Select all

2009   0.03 %   0.24 %   -0.38 %   -0.74 %   -1.28 %   -1.43 %   -2.10 %   -1.48 %   -1.29 %   -0.18 %   1.84 %   2.72 %   -0.34 %
2008   4.28 %   4.03 %   3.98 %   3.94 %   4.18 %   5.02 %   5.60 %   5.37 %   4.94 %   3.66 %   1.07 %   0.09 %   3.85 %

Look at that, inflation was running fairly high, then it dropped off to almost zero, then deflation set in and the economy went into freefall. I assume you recall that one at least.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Here, let me explain because it's really quite simple. They're printing dollars in order to fund government programs and other loans, no? As they print those dollars there is an increase in the money supply which means demand for the dollar lowers. Increase supply=lower demand, which means lower value for the dollar and the value deducted from the dollar or whatever fiat currency is a tax on a nations citizens. It also is the very same reason that prices go up, which hurt people. Yes, I know it's hard to believe but more expensive products hurt the lower and middle class the most.(the last bit was sarcasm by the way)






Now this is where I really start to question the intent behind leftism because 1. Why wouldn't some one want prices to be lower? since it obviously benefits us all. 2. Why wouldn't you want consumer spending to slow down? Since savings(if they aren't spending and they're holding their money then they're by definition saving) increase the availability of credit that can be invested into infrastructure. Oh wait now I get leftism was never about the people in the first place it was about elitism and the premise that people are too dumb to make decisions on their own.

Monetary deflation as far as the dollar is concerned is good thing because prices are cheaper and people with lower incomes can afford to purchase more stuff, it's a raise in the standard of living.

Let me explain, small words. If people not spend money. Economy slow down. Slow economy cause job loss. Job loss cause pain.

A demonstration, from history:

Code: Select all

1933   -9.79 %   -9.93 %   -10.00 %   -9.35 %   -8.03 %   -6.62 %   -3.68 %   -2.22 %   -1.49 %   -0.75 %   0.00 %   0.76 %   -5.09 %
1932   -10.06 %   -10.19 %   -10.26 %   -10.32 %   -10.46 %   -9.93 %   -9.93 %   -10.60 %   -10.67 %   -10.74 %   -10.20 %   -10.27 %   -10.30 %
1931   -7.02 %   -7.65 %   -7.69 %   -8.82 %   -9.47 %   -10.12 %   -9.04 %   -8.48 %   -9.64 %   -9.70 %   -10.37 %   -9.32 %   -8.94 %
1930   0.00 %   -0.58 %   -0.59 %   0.59 %   -0.59 %   -1.75 %   -4.05 %   -4.62 %   -4.05 %   -4.62 %   -5.20 %   -6.40 %   -2.66 %
1929   -1.16 %   0.00 %   -0.58 %   -1.17 %   -1.16 %   0.00 %   1.17 %   1.17 %   0.00 %   0.58 %   0.58 %   0.58 %   0.00 %

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/ ... ation.aspx

See how in 1929 inflation stopped? See how in 1930 deflation started? See how in 1931 deflation increased? Do you recall, perhaps, what that era was called? A controlled inflation is a sign of a healthy economy, deflation means your economy is about to dive.

Code: Select all

2009   0.03 %   0.24 %   -0.38 %   -0.74 %   -1.28 %   -1.43 %   -2.10 %   -1.48 %   -1.29 %   -0.18 %   1.84 %   2.72 %   -0.34 %
2008   4.28 %   4.03 %   3.98 %   3.94 %   4.18 %   5.02 %   5.60 %   5.37 %   4.94 %   3.66 %   1.07 %   0.09 %   3.85 %

Look at that, inflation was running fairly high, then it dropped off to almost zero, then deflation set in and the economy went into freefall. I assume you recall that one at least.

You're very wrong, and I believe that you are misinterpreting your data. The economy is going into free fall because it has to readjust in order to get rid of that bubble and draw resources elsewhere into the economy where they are actually needed. Prices need to fall. If you do not allow for this to occur then you're only delaying the inevitable which could have even worse consequences.
I also think you're confused on my stance. People will always spend money, but what I'm advocating is that people stop spending so much money, and that they start saving for the reasons I've listed in my previous posts.

[Hittanryan]

Prices need to fall. If you do not allow for this to occur then you're only delaying the inevitable which could have even worse consequences.
I also think you're confused on my stance. People will always spend money, but what I'm advocating is that people stop spending so much money, and that they start saving for the reasons I've listed in my previous posts.

People not spending so much money prolonged and intensified the recession. Prices falling due to a lack of demand is a bad thing. Because:

When prices fall, wages fall. When wages fall, demand falls. When demand falls, prices fall. And so on and so forth.

It's called a deflationary cycle, and it's one of the reasons the Great Depression was so persistent.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Prices need to fall. If you do not allow for this to occur then you're only delaying the inevitable which could have even worse consequences.
I also think you're confused on my stance. People will always spend money, but what I'm advocating is that people stop spending so much money, and that they start saving for the reasons I've listed in my previous posts.

People not spending so much money prolonged and intensified the recession. Prices falling due to a lack of demand is a bad thing. Because:

When prices fall, wages fall. When wages fall, demand falls. When demand falls, prices fall. And so on and so forth.

It's called a deflationary cycle, and it's one of the reasons the Great Depression was so persistent.

Lets just hope you aren't in charge of my favorite soda pop company anytime soon, because if you were then you'd probably bankrupt it with your philosophy by raising prices so high that no one could afford it.

But to reiterate my point lower prices mean greater standards of living for the lower and middle class, because they can afford to buy more stuff. Inflating the currency in order to keep prices high makes no sense, and hurts the middle and lower class because they have to spend in order to beat inflation diving themselves deeper into debt, and depreciating the available the amount of credit due to lack of savings.

Here's an example;

Lets say John made 10 dollars a day and spent 5 dollars to drive to work and back, 1 dollar on food and now has 4 dollars of expendable cash

Lets say the economy was bad and john's paycheck got cut to 8 dollars a day so he had to cut back on food and carpool to get to work. If gas prices continued to stay at 5 dollars John would have to continue to live at a lower standard or go into debt to keep up his lifestyle if prices continued to raise, but if the lack of demand for gas due to its high price fell then John would be able to afford to drive to work again and say if gas and food fell to 4 dollars 50 cents which would ratio of 3:5.

[The Wumbo Isles]

A) To claim that all liberals resort to ad hominem arguments is utterly preposterous--as a liberal, both sides make character attacks on one another. No side is empirically correct--there are dumb liberals, smart liberal, dumb conservatives, and smart conservatives, a point that I openly acknowledge. Dumb liberals are to blame for these supposedly well-touted statements that "corporations are evil," and "conservatives are racists."
B) This article just compared liberalism to Ingsoc by claiming it was "power for power's sake". You're telling me that's an appeal to reason?
C) We don't "attack" Judeo-Christian values; we just think it's reasonable that the nation that pioneered the secular republic reflect secularism. Surprise--not everyone is Christian, and the government has every right to not give Christianity special treatment. Furthermore, if you are truly Christian, why don't you give money to the poor? It's my opinion that Libertarianism, especially economically so, is fundamentally incompatible with Christ's teachings--but that's a discussion for another time.
D) "Therefore any real regulation is laughable at best in my opinion and should be thrown out." Think about that statement for a bit. Would you rather we revert to Gilded Age economic policy, where people regularly died laboring in mines, seven days a week, fourteen hours a day, to earn a wage so modest that it can barely feed the laborer, let alone his family? Some regulation is absolutely necessary to ensure that the laborer is not under the mercy of his employer; in the same way, it is also undesirable for the employer to be at the mercy of his employee. Why is a little moderation so difficult?
E) To conclude, you are no different from those "deplorable ad-hominem-relying liberals"--do you not see the hypocrisy in claiming that yet simultaneously referring to "the left" as a mysterious subversive force seeking to undermine American values, any one of its followers suddenly idiots? This post is not only ill-informed, but also insulting.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

D) "Therefore any real regulation is laughable at best in my opinion and should be thrown out." Think about that statement for a bit. Would you rather we revert to Gilded Age economic policy, where people regularly died laboring in mines, seven days a week, fourteen hours a day, to earn a wage so modest that it can barely feed the laborer, let alone his family? Some regulation is absolutely necessary to ensure that the laborer is not under the mercy of his employer; in the same way, it is also undesirable for the employer to be at the mercy of his employee. Why is a little moderation so difficult?

They worked hard because they were in poverty and needed to produce in order to get out of poverty. What would you rather have them do starve or live in the stone age?

[Unchecked Expansion]

They worked hard because they were in poverty and needed to produce in order to get out of poverty. What would you rather have them do starve or live in the stone age?

Be rewarded for their hard work with a fair wage and safe conditions. As we have seen from the world, a modicum of fairness is not an obstruction to business success, is it?

[The Black Forrest]

D) "Therefore any real regulation is laughable at best in my opinion and should be thrown out." Think about that statement for a bit. Would you rather we revert to Gilded Age economic policy, where people regularly died laboring in mines, seven days a week, fourteen hours a day, to earn a wage so modest that it can barely feed the laborer, let alone his family? Some regulation is absolutely necessary to ensure that the laborer is not under the mercy of his employer; in the same way, it is also undesirable for the employer to be at the mercy of his employee. Why is a little moderation so difficult?

They worked hard because they were in poverty and needed to produce in order to get out of poverty. What would you rather have them do starve or live in the stone age?

Yea no. They worked hard to exist. Unless of course you have numbers on how many escaped poverty.

You mention stone age and yet you basically saying serfdom is better.....

[Amacia]

C) We don't "attack" Judeo-Christian values; we just think it's reasonable that the nation that pioneered the secular republic reflect secularism. Surprise--not everyone is Christian, and the government has every right to not give Christianity special treatment. Furthermore, if you are truly Christian, why don't you give money to the poor? It's my opinion that Libertarianism, especially economically so, is fundamentally incompatible with Christ's teachings--but that's a discussion for another time.

Jesus talked about voluntary charity, not force.

[Farnhamia]

C) We don't "attack" Judeo-Christian values; we just think it's reasonable that the nation that pioneered the secular republic reflect secularism. Surprise--not everyone is Christian, and the government has every right to not give Christianity special treatment. Furthermore, if you are truly Christian, why don't you give money to the poor? It's my opinion that Libertarianism, especially economically so, is fundamentally incompatible with Christ's teachings--but that's a discussion for another time.

Jesus talked about voluntary charity, not force.

Wouldn't Yahweh have the biggest monopoly of force ever? And are you going to tell his only-begotten no?

[Trotskylvania]

C) We don't "attack" Judeo-Christian values; we just think it's reasonable that the nation that pioneered the secular republic reflect secularism. Surprise--not everyone is Christian, and the government has every right to not give Christianity special treatment. Furthermore, if you are truly Christian, why don't you give money to the poor? It's my opinion that Libertarianism, especially economically so, is fundamentally incompatible with Christ's teachings--but that's a discussion for another time.

Jesus talked about voluntary charity, not force.

Hardly. Charity, and giving up possessions to the religious commune, were explicit requirements for being a member of the community of believers. Calling it voluntary is an abuse of language. Failure to do so would be impious and heretical.

[Amacia]

Jesus talked about voluntary charity, not force.

Wouldn't Yahweh have the biggest monopoly of force ever? And are you going to tell his only-begotten no?

I try to give when I can, so I'm not saying no.

[Farnhamia]

Wouldn't Yahweh have the biggest monopoly of force ever? And are you going to tell his only-begotten no?

I try to give when I can, so I'm not saying no.

The point is, if you do it because "God" says you should, you're being coerced. Aren't you?

[Cannot think of a name]

C) We don't "attack" Judeo-Christian values; we just think it's reasonable that the nation that pioneered the secular republic reflect secularism. Surprise--not everyone is Christian, and the government has every right to not give Christianity special treatment. Furthermore, if you are truly Christian, why don't you give money to the poor? It's my opinion that Libertarianism, especially economically so, is fundamentally incompatible with Christ's teachings--but that's a discussion for another time.

Jesus talked about voluntary charity, not force.

He also mentioned something about rendering unto Caesar...

[Amacia]

Jesus talked about voluntary charity, not force.

Hardly. Charity, and giving up possessions to the religious commune, were explicit requirements for being a member of the community of believers. Calling it voluntary is an abuse of language. Failure to do so would be impious and heretical.

I'm talking about voluntary as opposed to rule by the state. Though I do support a minimum safety net.

[Hittanryan]

People not spending so much money prolonged and intensified the recession. Prices falling due to a lack of demand is a bad thing. Because:



It's called a deflationary cycle, and it's one of the reasons the Great Depression was so persistent.

Lets just hope you aren't in charge of my favorite soda pop company anytime soon, because if you were then you'd probably bankrupt it with your philosophy by raising prices so high that no one could afford it.

But to reiterate my point lower prices mean greater standards of living for the lower and middle class, because they can afford to buy more stuff. Inflating the currency in order to keep prices high makes no sense, and hurts the middle and lower class because they have to spend in order to beat inflation diving themselves deeper into debt, and depreciating the available the amount of credit due to lack of savings.

Here's an example;

Lets say John made 10 dollars a day and spent 5 dollars to drive to work and back, 1 dollar on food and now has 4 dollars of expendable cash

Lets say the economy was bad and john's paycheck got cut to 8 dollars a day so he had to cut back on food and carpool to get to work. If gas prices continued to stay at 5 dollars John would have to continue to live at a lower standard or go into debt to keep up his lifestyle if prices continued to raise, but if the lack of demand for gas due to its high price fell then John would be able to afford to drive to work again and say if gas and food fell to 4 dollars 50 cents which would ratio of 3:5.

You really, really don't understand what inflation or deflation are, do you?

[Amacia]

Jesus talked about voluntary charity, not force.

He also mentioned something about rendering unto Caesar...

Yes, if the law requires you to pay taxes you should, that doesn't mean you therefore must support the current level of taxation. I'm not one of these "taxation is theft" people btw.

[Amacia]

I try to give when I can, so I'm not saying no.

The point is, if you do it because "God" says you should, you're being coerced. Aren't you?

1. I don't do it only because "God says so", but because it is moral in itself.
2. I see where you're getting at, you're coming at this from a fundementalist and literalist persepective, where God "sends" people to "places" like Heaven and Hell. Heaven and Hell are nothing more than being or not being in the presence of God. He doesn't send anyone anywhere.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

The point is, if you do it because "God" says you should, you're being coerced. Aren't you?

1. I don't do it only because "God says so", but because it is moral in itself.
2. I see where you're getting at, you're coming at this from a fundementalist and literalist persepective, where God "sends" people to "places" like Heaven and Hell. Heaven and Hell are nothing more than being or not being in the presence of God. He doesn't send anyone anywhere.

So you're one of those "christians" who picks and chooses what part of their own holy book is correct?

[Tmutarakhan]

1. Why wouldn't some one want prices to be lower? since it obviously benefits us all.

It benefits you short-term if you are buying something, and hurts you if you are selling something (deflation goes together with business collapse); it benefits you long-term if you are holding large sums of money, hurts you long-term if you are in debt (deflation particularly crushes the unemployed, of whom there tend to be more and more in a deflationary economy).