22 Jul 19
@whodey saidI couldn't possibly summarize the history of socialism in each and every European country over the past 100 years including the ramifications for workers' rights in a few paragraphs here. If you are interested in this question, which I know you are not, I suggest you start looking into this issue yourself.
Not 43?
Informative as always KN.
@no1marauder saidStamping your feet and insisting you are right when every standard definition says you are wrong isn't as impressive as a bluff as you pretend it to be.
Stamping your feet and insisting you are right when every standard definition says you are wrong isn't as impressive as a bluff as you pretend it to be.
Admit your error and move on like a grownup.
EDIT: Your own in bold definition:
Stagflation is a condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment, OR economic stagnation, accompanied by r ...[text shortened]... personal attacks and will continue to do so. I am "qualified" enough to see through your propaganda.
Are you (an economically illiterate, ignorant layman) claiming to know of *every* definition? Furthermore, do you honestly believe that I cannot see through such an obvious bluff? It's clear that your understanding of it came from a definition that you found in a *dictionary* after a 5 second Google search - do you think you are fooling people into thinking that this makes you an expert who can decide what a "standard" definition is? Are you an economist?
EDIT: Your own in bold definition:
I put "OR" in capital letters for you, and I put the relevant part in italics:
OR economic stagnation, accompanied by rising prices, or inflation.
Can you read?
None of these conditions are applicable to the UK in the late 1960s.
Can you interpret the basic line graphs I posted?
I have already cited an academic textbook that supports the definition that I used:
Macroeconomics: Global and Southern African Perspectives
by Blanchard/Johnson
G13 - Glossary page 13
Stagflation: The combination of stagnation and inflation
There are other instances of the authors using my definition in the book.
This book was written by Olivier Blanchard and David Johnson, with the help of FOURTEEN South African economists who edited it to accommodate the different currency here, etc. Here is what is written about the two authors in the textbook (accurate at the time of publication in 2014):
"Olivier Blanchard serves as the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. He has done research on macroeconomic issues, including the effects of fiscal policy, the role of expectations, price rigidities, speculative bubbles, unemployment in Western Europe, transition in Eastern Europe, the role of labour market institutions, and the various aspects of the current global economic crisis. He has also done work for many governments and many international organisations, including the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD, the EU Commission and the EBRD. His publishing record includes over 150 articles and he has written or edited more than 20 books, including "Lectures on Macroeconomics" with Stanley Fischer."
Additionally, here is the Wikipedia article on him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Blanchard
"Olivier Jean Blanchard (born December 27, 1948) is a French economist and professor who is a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He was the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund from September 1, 2008, to September 8, 2015. Blanchard was appointed to the position under the tenure of Dominique Strauss-Kahn; he was succeeded by Maurice Obstfeld. He also is a Robert M. Solow Professor of Economics Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is one of the most cited economists in the world, according to IDEAS/RePEc."
He's also a New Keynesian, yet he wrote a book that supports MY definition of stagflation.
Here is what the textbook has to say about David Johnson:
"David Johnson is a professor of economics at Wilfrid Laurier University and Education Policy Scholar at the C.D Howe Institute. His areas of speciality are macroeconomics, international finance and the economics of education. His published work includes studies of Canada's international debt, the influence of American interest rates on Canadian interest rates, and the determination of the exchange rate between Canada and the United States. "
Let's play a little game, shall we?
You go before a panel of the 16 economists (including the former chief economist of the IMF for 7 years; one of the most cited economists in the world) who wrote the textbook that I have cited supporting my definition and you (an economically ignorant lawyer) say the following:
No1Marauder: "I have a problem with the definition you have used in this book. You see, it was made up by politicians and now by you. It's obviously not the standard definition. It's pathetic that you cannot admit your error - your redefining of words reminds me of Humpty Dumpty. I know I'm right - I have a Merriam-Webster dictionary to prove it."
That panel of economists wouldn't entertain for even one second the ramblings of an arrogant, ignorant lawyer who is far too big for his boots.
I am "qualified" enough to see through your propaganda.
No, you aren't. You have shown your abysmal ignorance of both economic concepts and especially economic history in a number of threads over the past half-year or so. In the face of irrefutable evidence that the conditions for stagflation were met in the UK in the late 60s, you have simply resorted to pure denial. You have provided no commentary on my points about remembering the historical context and how the UK's figures cannot be seen through today's prism. You have entirely failed to explain why Keynesianism was unable to deal with stagflation after it occurred, even IF it was caused by an exogenous price shock after Yom Kippur. Look up "Phillips curve".
I don't expect that this will matter to you one bit. In fact, like a stuck record, I expect you to reply with a tweaked version of the inane post you have written around 4 times now, which entirely fails to deal with any of my points and instead insists in the face of undeniable evidence to the contrary that I invented a definition(not that it really matters as I am right by both definitions), all because it's not the same as one you found in a dictionary.
@ashiitaka said3% real growth and full employment is not "stagnation" by any definition except the one you have created.
Stamping your feet and insisting you are right when every standard definition says you are wrong isn't as impressive as a bluff as you pretend it to be.
Are you (an economically illiterate, ignorant layman) claiming to know of *every* definition? Furthermore, do you honestly believe that I cannot see through such an obvious bluff? It's clear that your understandin ...[text shortened]... as I am right by both definitions), all because it's not the same as one you found in a dictionary.
The usual resort to petty insults and personal attacks is expected on this Forum. In point of fact, Economics was my second field at university and we extensively covered the stagflation of the 1970s. But keep spewing bile if it makes you happy.
23 Jul 19
@kazetnagorra saidI just love this response.
I couldn't possibly summarize the history of socialism in each and every European country over the past 100 years including the ramifications for workers' rights in a few paragraphs here. If you are interested in this question, which I know you are not, I suggest you start looking into this issue yourself.
Sure, I've been proved wrong that Europe is really socialist, but I will continue to say it is anyway using my defense as, "Go study about it cuz I either can't or will not use my words to defend my lie any longer".
Brilliant!
23 Jul 19
@earl-of-trumps saidGood grief.
@KazetNagorra
I am not saying "all", Kaz. But I will tell you this, the economic misery will take hold eventually. Remember, the infrastructure such of duch countries was already established like it was in Russia before the revolution. And as time went along, it was clear that the "progressive" movement was going backwards and Russia/USSR could not even keep up with the maintenance. It takes time to destroy a nation's infrastructure but they will eventually.
You literally know nothing.
23 Jul 19
@eladar saidIncome isn’t what you judge wealth by.
@KazetNagorra
Check out Switzerland. The article I saw said they bring home on average 84k.
For the US
Practical tax rate: 18%
Average pre-tax salary: $64,154
Average post-tax salary: $52,344
Netherlands
Practical tax rate: 41%
Average pre-tax salary: $51,669
Average post-tax salary: $30,562
My income is lower than the US average, (if your figures are correct) yet I live on a lake, have 10 weeks of paid vacation a year and a whole lot of secondary benefits (free phone, computer, commute, health care plan, etc.).
It’s an example... obviously I don’t work! That’s for horses and slaves.
23 Jul 19
@eladar saidEducation is free?
Education is free in the US. Healthcare is free for many.
It would be nice if someone would actually crunch those numbers.
University is free? What’s with all the grants?
How many people have 4 weeks of paid
Vacation?
How many people have passports?
Which percentage of the population have been to higher education?
Which percentage of the population have more than 1 job or work 60+ hours a week?
These are things that matter. They’re better indicators to healthy living.
23 Jul 19
@whodey saidI never even claimed that "Europe is socialist," let alone having had this claim "disproven."
I just love this response.
Sure, I've been proved wrong that Europe is really socialist, but I will continue to say it is anyway using my defense as, "Go study about it cuz I either can't or will not use my words to defend my lie any longer".
Brilliant!