Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: Craig234
'Everything you said is sensible, but I don't see how it proves that OJ Simpson is innocent of murder.'
What is that you say? You never claimed that it shows OJ Simpson is innocent of murder?
Well, then perhaps you can get some idea how I react to you doing the same thing.
*I never said the word hyperinflation except to refer to your saying it.* I never made the claim that you say my argument does not prove.
I not only did not say it - I twice now explicitly criticized YOUR post for making hyperinflation the issue - and yet you continue to claim *I'm* the one who said it?
How can I spell this out a third time for it to sink in? I'm not talking about hyperinflation. You are. I'm talking about the possibility of 'high', not 'hyper', inflation.
You did say it, you explicitly stated the following in response to my first post in this thread: "
It's not just hyperinflation..."
I said that IN RESPONSE TO YOUR BRINGING UP HYPERINFLATION. I had not said the word before you brought it up.
I'll repeat from above - I'd even used asterisks for you:
"*I never said the word hyperinflation except to refer to your saying it.*"
Now, we know saying something once you don't hear it, so again:
"*I never said the word hyperinflation except to refer to your saying it.*"
And again:
"*I never said the word hyperinflation except to refer to your saying it.*"
So you distinctly state it isn't just hyperinflation, read your own crap.
As I showed above, you are the one who needs to read what I said, since you continue to say thing based on misrepresentations of what I said.
I appropriately responded that there were no flaws in my argument since I NEVER claimed that "high inflation" was not a possibility (a strawman you created and tore down on your own), nor is the possibility of hyperinflation akin to high inflation unless your definition of high inflation is the same thing as hyperinflation.
You inappropriately responded to my pointing out that you *only* discussed hyperinflation, and did not say a word about lower but still high levels of inflation thatw would also be relevant, with misrepreentation after misrepresentation, as you continue to try to do to this very post.
I have in fact explicitly stated in other threads that not only is inflation itself very likely, but that so is moderate to high inflation, and even in this very thread that we could see 6% annual inflation.
So, not a word on the possibility between what you call 'high', 6%, and what you call hyper, 30%? You leave out any discussion of 6%-30% - a range very relevant to the topic.
I thought you had finally commented on that range in your last post, and acknowledged that you finally had, but now you are back to putting a ceiling on your comment at 6%.
I am also very sorry your critical reading is so poor
You are making a fool of yourself now.
that you think me mentioning hyperinflation as something loony (it is without any doubt) can be considered as equivalent to people saying there will be a banking collapse.
And because of YOUR lack of reading comprehension, you think that's what I said, when it's not.
I've said several times now what the flaw was in your claiming to prove anything by only discussing hyperinflation and excluding that 6%-30% range from the discussion, and you have yet to understand what I've very clearly said, that I'm sure pretty much everyone else here has understood long ago.
Saying generally that there will be a banking collapse is not loony
And I neve said it was, but you seem to be unable to post almost anything that's not a misrepresentation of what I said.
In fact, I posted the predictions of the problems that the deregulation in 1999 would cause as comments I think were proven true and represent good comments.
because there is a distinct historical basis for bank collapses, including several banking panics in the 19th century (1873, 1893) and two in the 20th century (1907, early 30's). They happen far less frequently than they used to so frequent banking panics are probably highly unlikely over the next, say, 50-100 years all else equal, because our laws and maturation have been substantial since the early 20th century. But by no means was it "loony" to suggest a banking collapse, what was loony was to suggest you could predict it with exact precision.
And yet again - I post EXACTLY that it cannot be predicted with precision, and posted how while his prediction happened to be right on, even he said it was hardly something he was able to predict with any accuracy, and yet here you are YET AGAIN misrepresenting what I said by implying I said the opposite of what I said, by pretending that when you repeeat what I said, you are arguing with my point.
I can't recall anyone so perverse here.
*The only points you made were about hyperinflation*. You introduced the word. You discussed the word. You pretended to be arguing against *my* saying it.
I've had to repeatedly say that I did not say that, and that I *was* talking about high inflation, not hyperinflation.
You in fact said the following; "It's not
just hyperinflation"
IN RESPONSE TO YOU BRINGING IT UP.
, and then went on to talk about high inflation which I of course never denied was a possibility
My point twas that you did not discuss the 6%-30% range at all - which you confrim here but pretend that saying you did not 'deny' something somehow nullifies that point.
On the question of the Chinese policy, it's a relevant topic if inflation hits 10% or 15% or more. You claimed to have addressed the issue with *only* a mention that hyperinflation is very unlikely, not saying a word about the lower but still problematic rates, whatever their likelihood. The point I made was that you did not discuss them, and need to to address the topic. You saying you 'did not deny they're possible' does not answer my point that you had not addressed 6%-30% whatsoever.
'Not denying' something is not discussing something. And having posted at some time in some other thread on the topic doesn't address my point, either.
IN fact, I'm going to make this EVEN MORE clear.
You said, responding to the topic of the Chinese comments about starting a new currency, regarding their concerns about the dollar and inflation:
There will be no global currency, the dollar will be alive and well. Hyperinflation conspiracy theorists (which is exactly what they are) have continued to look foolish for several years now.
There you are: your conclusion (won't happen) and yiour proof of your conclusion (because hyperinflation won't happen).
That DOES imply the only relevant level of inflation to the topic is hyperinflation, no matter how many times you want to try to say simply 'not denying' the chance of high inflation is the same as if you had actually discussed it, its likelihood, its impact on the chances of the new currency. You did not, which i what I said, and saying you did not deny it does not disprove what I said, that you did not discuss high inflation.
(unless your definition of high inflation is equivalent to hyperinflation in which case this argument is over semantics).
I have been very clear throughout that I do *not* equate hyperinflation and high inflation.
It's an understatement to refer to your not understanding that as poor reading comprehension.
What part of my using examples like 10% and 15% to define the term high inflation over and over and over and contrast it with your 30% hyperinflation was unclear?
Again, I cannot help that you are literally dodging your own words; you have literally said "You made a straw man by pretending the only inflation concern is 'hyper inflation', not just high inflation", something I have never once said in this thread and you couldn't prove otherwise.
First, you need to learn what the word literally means.
But second and more to the point, I said that and it's correct.
To repeat for the umpteenth time:
The topic was raised about the issue of the Chinese reaction to the risk of inflation. Rather that discussing all such inflation rates that might be relevant, you posted *only* mentioning "hyperinflation" and discounting that, without a word about the risks of lesser but still high inflation - leaving any conclusion unproven.
That's what I said, and I've quoted you repeatedly to prove what I said.
At this point you re simply making factually incorrect statements about what was posted.
Show me, in your post that I responded to with the quote above about you only discussing hyperinflation, where you said a word about lower but stilll high levels of inflation.
You can't. You did not say a word about those until later posts after I made the comment.
The mere fact that I addressed hyperinflation and didn't go into detail about high inflation in my first response to you
If by "did not go into detail" you mean, as I said, did not say *one word about it*.
does not suddenly mean I'm saying "The only inflation concern is hyperinflation". Read that sentence again, I want it to sink in: The mere fact that I addressed hyperinflation and didn't go into detail about high inflation in my first response to you does not suddenly mean I'm saying "The only inflation concern is hyperinflation".
The fact that you responded to the topic of Chinese concerns about inflation with ONLY a mention of hyperinflation - as I said, your 'did not go into detail' is false and disengenuous as you did not say a word about any level of inflation other than hyperinflation - DID have the flaw of not actually addressing the issue of the Chines concerns about inflation, because levels below 30% are relevant, and you did not say a word about them.
Now you read that a few times.
And fact is, I have said in this very thread that there is "Nothing wrong with [inflation] as long as it isn't extreme, which would probably be past 6% annually". My bases are covered in every respect.
I'm not going to go back now and see when you said that - before or after I made this point - but you did not make it in your post responding to the topic of Chinese concerns about inflation. And you did post the implication that there are no concerns other than hyperinflation by saying 'it won't happen because hyperinflation won't happen', as I showed above, without any discussion of high inflation, as I said.
You ask me to quote where you make hyperinflation the only issue - here's your entire post that started this (my bolding):
The only issue with inflation you mention there is hyperinflation, not high inflation. My response said exactly that - that you had only mentioned hyperinflation.
And that's
your argument, I never once stated in that post that high inflation wasn't a possibility or concern or anything else you want to make up so you can backtrack.
Excuse me - I did not backtrack a thing. You are trying to backtrack. I said you did not discuss high inflation. You respond that 'not denying it' somehow disproves what I said.
So if you post that I did not discuss Wellington defeating Napoleon in previous prosts, I can prove you wrong by saying "I did not deny that Wellington defeated Napoleon."
You don't have a leg to stand on.
It's like trying to argue with Abbot and Costello, as you repeat *my* point and pretend you are correcting something I said.
*I never said 10-15% is hyper inflation*. I said the opposite. I criticized you for ONLY talking about hyperinflation, and not talking about 10-15% levels that are NOT hyper.
My original post was only talking about hyperinflation because someone mentioned hyperinflation. I literally cannot help that you not only don't want to accept that I have never once stated that high inflation wasn't a concern, but that I have literally posted in this thread that extreme inflation would probably start at around 6% (and that might even be a little low).
It's not about what I want, it's about what you said. Need the quote agian? In response to the topic of the Chinese suggesting a new currency over dollar/inflation concerns:
There will be no global currency, the dollar will be alive and well. Hyperinflation conspiracy theorists (which is exactly what they are) have continued to look foolish for several years now.
That's YOU arguing a conclusion based on NOTHING but a mention of hyperinflation - implying that you can make the conclusion without discussing any other inflation levels.
Do you agree that any level of inflation from 6% to 30% would risk new currency creation? We don't know, since you don't discuss those levels.
Do you think there is a risk of inflation 6%-30%? We did not know from your post, because you did not say - and that's exactly what I said you didn't do.
It's as if you want to argue that we should not choose a certain policy you claim will raise oil prices 10%, and I will only respond about how it won't double oil prices.
You see the problem? Sure, I can prove it won't double them, just as you may have a good case against hyper inflation. But what about their 10% increase? I did not address that. What about high inflation of 10-15%? You did not address that. Are you beggining to see your error in only discussing hyperinflation, and not, say, 10-15% inflation?
Considering my original post was never about high inflation but was a direct response to hyperinflation and nothing more, and
especially since I have talked about legit and non-loony concerns about high inflation in other threads, I'm afraid you're just not very well informed about my statements.
Now you're trying to (figuratively, not literally) dodge your own words, by pretedning your post was 'about hyperinflation', rather than being about the risk of a new global currency, and merely using hyperinflation for your argument about the conclusion you reached on the risk of a new global currency. But let's look at your post AGAIN:
There will be no global currency, the dollar will be alive and well. Hyperinflation conspiracy theorists (which is exactly what they are) have continued to look foolish for several years now.
Whato do you know - it's about the topic of whether there is a risk of a new global currency, not hyperinflation, and you say no, there's no risk
In arguing for your conclusion, you only mention hyperinflation - implying that only hyperinflation is relevant to the risk level of a new currency.
You did not say a word about inflation rates of 6% - 30%, and I said it's a flaw in your argument that you limited your argument to hyperinflation - and you did so limit it.
The 'it hasn't happened for years' [while people predict there's a risk] was summarazing the point *you* made about how people have been predicting it for years.
It was not discussing how long hyperinflation has not been happening, but rather how just because people predict something for a long time that hasn't happened, is not proof that there's not a risk. That's a fallacy that was being pointed out in your arguing that the fact it hasn't happened while some say there's a risk proves people saying it now are wrong. And since you have not been very good at noting my statements, I'll repeat, I'm not predicting there, I'm just saying your argument is flawed.
And again, my argument is not flawed because by your logic everything is possible, including large meteors hitting earth, in which case the whole discussion turns into a meaningless game. Yes, hyperinflation is technically possible, just like large meteors hitting earth. Maybe not exactly the same probability, but the general idea about historical likelihood still applies.
Sorry, but you obviously are not able to get a very simple argument here, and I'm wasting my time to repeat the obvious.
You equate a solid prediction of a policy that creates risk with any extremely obscure risk, and so you are playing games that are pointless.
And you're on hyperinflation *AGAIN*. My gosh, you are fixated.
rofl, yes, because I specifically pointed it out in my OP. Come on, this is sad, backtrack somewhere else. I'm sorry that you didn't read my posts in this thread about high inflation (my 6% comment) and/or didn't read my other posts in multiple other threads about inflation risks, while simultaneously believing that because I didn't point out high inflation for one post means that somehow I said "The only inflation concern is hyperinflation"
A better response to my post that these thousands of obtuse words you have written and generated in my responses:
When I said you did not address levels of inflation in the 6%-30% range ('high' inflation) in response to this post:
"There will be no global currency, the dollar will be alive and well. Hyperinflation conspiracy theorists (which is exactly what they are) have continued to look foolish for several years now."
You could and should have simply said what you are trying to claim you said before, your position on the likelihood 6%-30% inflation has on a new currency, and of those rates.
I don't have a dog in this fight - I haven' made predictions about the likely inflation rate - I merely pointed out the glaring hole in your argument.
You acknowledge you did not address that glaring hole in the quoted post, and say you want people to have ties together other posts and threads for the answer.
I'm not at all sure you answred it clearly elsewhere, either - discussijng 'up to 6%' does not say anything about 6%-30% - but you could have answered this in one sentence.
Facebook
Twitter