Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Uhh... the tagline of the left was literally "follow the science". You can't distinguish that science and policy are not completely separate.
Where do you think Rachel Maddow got this bullshit science from? She made it up herself or that government officials told her that's how the vaccine/covid work?
Kids were kicked out of restaurants and couldn't eat because they weren't vaccinated in the very place I lived during covid. Why were kids forced to get this when 1) covid is less dangerous to them than the flu and 2) kids aren't drivers of covid spread while they are drivers of the flu? Based on basic logic if you had to choose that kids are forced to get the covid shot or the flu shot, you would objectively choose the flu shot.
Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Also, where are these thousands of untold deaths because of Andrew Wakefield from measles and rubella? That was your claim, where is your proof?
There is no "tagline of the left". This sentence is meaningless.
When you disagree with something, you have a tendency to create an amorphous, undefined group thats easier to demonise. Here its termed "the left". But this is just empty ranting; there was no such group, there was no "tagline". Various health authorities-- FDA, CDC, HHS-- made various decisions, various media people said various things. But this is too complex and involves too many actors for you to get your head around, and you don't care much for accuracy, so you've just started conglomerating all the stuff you don't like and attributing it to a non-existent single target group.
More irrelevant waffle.
We are not discussing public health policy on covid vaccines right now.
The resurgences of measles and rubella are well documented. I could provide some sources quite easily-- they're easily findable for either of us.
But before i do that-- what's the point? We know what you're going to do: if i provide something, you'll cherry pick one or two irrelevant quibbles, or just misread it, and dismiss the entire thing.
There's no point. You cannot read scientific papers, studies, analyses. You are incapable of approaching them objectively.
And all the while, you continue to make these outrageous, unscientific claims about vaccines without a shred of evidence. State them as fact and expect us all to just swallow them. Its inane, endless waffle.
Either you are trolling us or you are so terrifyingly ignorant of how any of this really works that it's just not worth discussing the topic further.
A relatively small percent change in spending can have a proportionately large impact on debt and inflation, as the difference between spending and taxation is a much smaller number than total spending. If you think I'm trolling by saying that, I do not need to say anything further, you have embarrassed yourself.
Dr Fauci literally saying on the state department channel that covid vaccines protect against infection. That was claimed to be the science (not policy), and that was not true, it was misinformation.
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
www.youtube.com
And for literally everything the left was enacting whether it be masking or closing beaches or whatever, they said we are following the science, they weren't following the science. The right was literally "uhh... let's not" to like all of those things and they were right like 9 times out of 10.
I literally posted the deaths from measles (post autism-vaccine misinfo), there were not thousands. And since rubella vaccine, there's less than 10 cases a year. Where are getting untold thousands of deaths?
Fine then, you're not trolling. You just have so little humility about your competence that it makes you incapable of understanding just how little you know or accepting correction.
This is just wrong on any number of levels. For instance, governments do actually run out of money. Greece was de facto bankrupt ~2010. Argentina has been de facto bankrupt numerous times. Already, you're not describing reality. Governments can theoretically dodge bankruptcy by printing money as you're alluding to, and sometimes try. (Sometimes also they don't.)
There's some hint of truth in the idea that the government can cause inflation by printing money, but the key job of the average central bank these days is to manage inflation. Inflation is preferentially held at a low rate in most Western economies (<2%) for a range of reasons, which aren't relevant here because they'd be doing that whether or not the government were borrowing and spending. The idea that governments increase spending causes loads of inflation is patently trash: we have decades of statistics across hundreds of countries and it's just not true. It's not just that you are spouting stuff that's theoretically wrong, it's also even wrong by what can be observed from reality.
Haha! No.
Inflation exists in many forms. What you are thinking of as "overall price of everything" notionally exists, but is in practice measured as a basket of indicative goods, some of which may actually decrease in price as others increase. Things like CPI, RPI, etc. represent these different measures. Inflation can apply to a single good or service, or a basket of them, or everything. But just because inflation as an average goes up doesn't mean everything got more expensive.
Nor do you seem to understand that the value of money dropping and the price of stuff increasing are the same thing. You seem to be confusing mechanisms by which inflation occurs with what inflation is.
I'm afraid you can't disprove apples by pointing out oranges. Comparing the government borrowing more to a breadline family losing income is a patently absurd analogy on numerous levels. Firstly, it's inconsistent even by your own logic above that public and private spending/borrowing are not comparable. Secondly, it's clearly unreasonable to use a government increasing spending power by borrowing with a family losing spending power because you've reversed how the money is going. Just garbage.
There's also a weird trick by shifting the argument from debts to deficits. ("Doubling the deficit" is meaningless without context of what the deficit is relative to the size of government revenue or wider economy.)
Even within such a terrible analogy, again, remember here than an economy is the amount being spent. You can't just pretend that the family's economy is the $5,000 in elective spendingafter its $45,000 obligations, because that $45,000 obligation is, in fact also spending. Increase it's income $500, it's spending becomes $50,500 compared to the prior $50,000, not $5,500 compared to the prior $5000.
No, it can't.
Forget everything you said, ignore what I said, go read any source you trust about what inflation is, then come back and either concede or start from scratch.
That's not misinformation. It is merely something you disagree with because you have a fringe, whackjob understanding.
Ok, so you don't mean "the left" (whatever that means), you mean public health agencies took decisions you disagree with.
But you've demonstrated no competent understanding of the issue, so i see no reason to care much about your disagreements.
No, you posted the rate in the United States. Wakefield is a British fraudster who wrote in a British journal that held/holds international regard in hundreds of countries.
Over 90,000 people died of measles last year. Obviously the specific impact of the study will be difficult to quantify, but in the UK alone, the incidence of measles lept from ~50 in 1998 to over 900 in 2007. That fraudulent study was the turning point-- and cases rose globally too. Vaccine "scepticism", and the false fear of a link to autism, are still commonly cited reasons for refusal.
Last edited:
What causes this drop in purchasing value in your example?
And how is it supposed to cause inflation?
Inflation itself is what causes one's money's purchasing value to drop, not the other way around.
An apple costs 2 bucks, you have 10 bucks; your money's purchasing value is 5 apples.
Apples increase in price to 2,50; your money's purchasing value drops to 4 apples.
A change in the proportion of money to goods. More money chasing the same number of goods and services results in higher prices per transaction. Sellers miss out of profits when they don't increase their prices in a market where people have more money to spend.
The inflation you're describing would be caused by the purchasing value of money increasing, not by it dropping.
And yet it does! People regularly refer to inflation for specific subsets of the economy like food, or computers / tech; and indeed it's not just governments and media that do so, but organisations like the IMF ("Inflation is typically a broad measure, such as the overall increase in prices or the increase in the cost of living in a country. But it can also be more narrowly calculated—for certain goods, such as food, or for services, such as a haircut, for example.").
There's an obvious and important utility in doing so, because different changes in prices in different parts of the economy affect people differently. High inflation in food prices is a nightmare for the poor and a triviality for the rich (unless, perhaps, they are running a catering business).
If it's good enough for governments, and reputable media organisations, and major international economic agencies, it's good enough for me.
So perhaps I should ask you whether you would like to concede and start from scratch?
Definition of insanity, and all that jazz.
No, You have that backwards. Prices go up is equal to money being less valuable.
Well, the important part is that you found sources that you feel you can trust. And the only one that refers to using inflation to describe a single item also says this:
"Long-lasting episodes of high inflation are often the result of lax monetary policy. If the money supply grows too big relative to the size of an economy, the unit value of the currency diminishes; in other words, its purchasing power falls and prices rise."
I know better than some of them... I know better than all of you is the important part though.
Aw bless. Even as everyone has just witnessed one of the most obvious examples of you being wrong, you still won't admit it.
You're getting some free education here: you could even show some gratitude.
Sure! That's totally consistent with several things I've said and nobody here I'm aware of disagrees with that.
As I noted in #21,048, in most Western countries monetary policy is controlled by an independent central bank to maintain a steady, low rate of inflation (usually under 2%). There are numerous purposes here. A notional target of 0% is actually unpalatable, because it will vary to deflation or inflation sometimes which is more problematic, and also IIRC inflation promotes lending, and lending encourages business investment and growth. Inflation promotes lending because in deflation you may as well leave your money under your mattress and you'll get richer. But that money could instead be put to work funding improvements in technology and business opportunities.
This is to a large part separate from government spending and borrowing, which is fiscal policy. Government and private spending together will however impact inflation. For instance, it's not uncommon that if an economy has rapid growth, the central bank will increase interest rates. Interest rates have a strong impact on inflation. The bank might curb growth because of both inflation and the threat of misallocation of resources leading to a bubble and crash. Likewise when the economy is doing badly, the bank drops interest rates, to help increase economic activity. A key point included in here being that when you say private sector activity doesn't affect inflation, you are absolutely wrong.
Again, if the government increased spending which might cause excessive inflation (and even then that would probably have to be a spending increase by a margin far larger than you appear to think), the bank would almost certainly enact monetary policy to help control that inflation. So you are wrong to equate "money supply" with inflation in the way you have. The bank is actually causing inflation for the reasons above, and would still be aiming for those inflation targets irrespective of government fiscal policy.
Last edited: