Are the central banks accepting the blame themselves for the inflation? — ssu

No, and quite rightly. Because, as I’ve repeated many times, central banks play some part in inflation. They are not alone the cause. If that were true, we’d have had inflation 13 years ago.

There’s plenty to criticize the Fed about. Being “the” cause of inflation isn’t one of them.

Yet one should understand that the role of money supply isn't going to officially acknowledged. — ssu

It seems not only to be acknowledged but downright insisted upon — myopically.

Just a reminder that Trump has been lying about the election for nearly two years and provoked an insurrection.

The quicker they put this degenerate crook in prison, the better.

Imagine being a Trump apologist, having to argue in favor of border walls, climate denial, and the senseless scrapping of successful deals.

:starstruck:

At about 1.5°C some tipping points may be reached, including for the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, accelerated thawing of boreal permafrost, and die-off of tropical coral reefs. But the authors “cannot rule out” that ice-sheet tipping points have already been passed and that some other tipping elements have minimum thresholds in range of 1.1°C to 1.5°C of warming. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/climate/global-warming-climate-tipping-point.html?smid=url-share

Isn’t it sad how far one has to go as a climate denier? Literally to the point of arguing that because we don’t understand everything, and can’t be 100% certain, we can’t make statements about global warming.

Funny how this stupidity doesn’t get invoked unless the subject matter has been politicized — or, in the case of creationists, goes against religious belief.

Suddenly they become “skeptics” or, sadder still, argue that they know more than the thousands of people who have studied the issue their entire lives — all because they’ve spent a few minutes reading Bjorn Lomborg.

Nothing else quite exposes one’s ignorance and irrationality like this. In politics and economics there’s always some wiggle room — in science, it’s obvious.

And until we know a lot in this area, we can't say that CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily responsible for warming. Sorry, you are just wrong and blinded. — spirit-salamander

First: we do understand a great deal about the atmosphere. There’s plenty to learn still — as with all sciences, it’s a continuous journey. Unless the field is dead.

Second, we can and do say that greenhouse gasses are responsible for warming. The evidence for this is overwhelming. I have a sample of the evidence in my post above, which you ignored. That speaks volumes about your willful ignorance.

In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.
Aside: It is usually interesting to ask just what observations or evidence your skeptic would consider “proof” that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels. Don’t be surprised if you get no answer!

So I pose that very question to you: what would you consider satisfactory evidence?

If you were intellectually honest, you would have to admit that my thesis is not absurd. — spirit-salamander

Your thesis is that “since we don’t know everything about the atmosphere, there’s no absolute certainty that humans are contributing to climate change.” That’s the thesis. It is indeed absurd. It’s made because you’re willfully ignorant about the evidence (and science), and continue to demonstrate this.

Do you really think that there is absolutely rigorous methodology and precise science behind these graphs? — spirit-salamander

Which graph?

Yes, measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and measuring temperature are quite rigorous I’d say.

As a philosopher, you should admit that I may be on the right track. — spirit-salamander

I’m not a philosopher.

And you’re not on the right track. Sorry.

Today we have better climate projection models, and longer observations with a much clearer signal of climate change," said Vautard, one of the authors of an upcoming assessment by the United Nations' panel of climate experts.

"It was already clear, but it is even clearer and more indisputable today."

(From one of your sources. Just FYI. Maybe read them next time.)

So my thesis is that we know very little about the interactions between the sun and the many layers of the earth's atmosphere. — spirit-salamander

And your thesis is wrong.

That other factors are mainly responsible for climate change I can't show to your satisfaction yet, unfortunately, — spirit-salamander

Why would this be “unfortunate”?

Skeptical about the fact that humans alone really control the climate and can change it through CO2 emissions or reduction. It is probably hubris to believe that we are changing the climate, — spirit-salamander

Humans “alone” don’t “control” the earth’s climate. No climate scientist ever has or ever will make that claim. So that’s another fabrication.

Human activity has increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is why the planet is warming at an alarming rate. Your ignorance and fabrication doesn’t change this fact— sorry.

See my post that explains this for beginners. If you can’t do that, I have no interest in taking time to read articles you Google (which don’t seem to support your position at all).

Trump and his supporters can’t wait to turn the US into a dictatorship.

Now you're reading me uncharitable. I never said Lomberg was right. Only that he holds a different opinion that might be right. — spirit-salamander

Okay, so we have on the one hand the scientific community, where there's 98% consensus due to years of accumulated evidence and research that overwhelmingly points to human activity (deforestation, burning fossil fuels, etc.), and on the other hand someone who is not a climate scientist who has been shown to use misleading data.

You, who clearly have no real knowledge of the evidence of this matter, have chosen to throw in with the latter. I can only assume for political reasons, as is usually the case. Republicans in the US, for example, are much more likely to be climate deniers -- and that's not an accident. It's because of the media they consume.

But I have talked about the media, and by that I mean reports, documentaries on television. Koonin, I know you don't take him one iota seriously, but he still said that a reason for strong alarmism isn't to be found in the scientific paper, but is generated only by the IPCC or UN Council and eventually raised immensely in the news. — spirit-salamander

The IPCC is "alarmist"?

Regarding Koonin, Scientific American said it best in response to his work:

The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and 1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than anticipated... [Decision makers] are using the best and most honest science to inform prospective investments in abatement (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the estimated likelihoods of dangerous climate change impacts) and adaptation (reducing vulnerabilities to diminish their current and projected consequences).

physicist Raymond Pierrehumbert criticized Koonin's 2014 commentary in The Wall Street Journal, "Climate Science Is Not Settled,"[23] as "a litany of discredited arguments" with "nuggets of truth ... buried beneath a rubble of false or misleading claims from the standard climate skeptics' canon."

Again, you're choosing to follow non-climate scientists. This shows your bias, nothing more. You claim neutrality, but you've chosen a side already and it's evident from your sources, which have so far been 100% climate "skeptics."

No, it isn’t. What is the basis for such a claim?
— Xtrix

Yes, it is. — spirit-salamander

No, it isn't.

Read scientific articles about this, and you will discover that I am right. — spirit-salamander

I just asked you what the basis was for such a claim, and you say "read scientific articles about this." WHAT scientific articles do you have in mind? By all means share. I didn't make the claim -- you did. The onus is on you to provide support for that claim. If you can't do that, then I'll take it for what it is and what's quickly becoming a theme for you: fabrication.

What would you say if I were right per impossibile. Would it make you doubt? Please answer me this question, because your answer would interest me very much. — spirit-salamander

Formulate a coherent question and I'll gladly answer. The above makes no sense.

One should only not lose one's mind and lay down one's life for the time-conditioned current state of science. — spirit-salamander

Good -- because no one is doing that, except in your fantasy world of fabrication. What we're doing is following the overwhelming evidence that climate change is happening at a rapid pace, accelerated by human activity. Read the post where I lay this out in basic terms; if you have questions, raise it with that. The evidence is straightforward and it doesn't take long to read.

So the earth and its climate is not a closed system in your view? — spirit-salamander

"Closed system"? This is meaningless. No climatologist is claiming, or ever has claimed, that human activity is EXCLUSIVELY the cause of climate change. Ever. That, again, is pure fabrication.

What climate scientists have done, your beliefs notwithstanding, is account for natural factors and natural variation. The rate of change we see is far beyond any natural factor. That includes clouds, volcanoes, the sun, or any of the other claims that have been launched by climate deniers for the last several decades.

No, it is not cheap skepticism. — spirit-salamander

It's exactly that.

If you knew the critical history of science and also read philosophy of science, you might get similar ideas. — spirit-salamander

Yes, I would recommend you read some history of science and philosophy of science. So far you've demonstrated you know about as much of either as you do about climate science -- viz., next to nothing.

I trust my judgment of human nature that they take it seriously. I can be wrong, of course. It is only enough for me that they are intellectually honest, which does not mean that they are right. — spirit-salamander

Yes, you are wrong. They're not intellectually honest. In fact it's been repeatedly shown that this is the case. Yet you go with them over the science community. Odd.

The issue has been politicized by a very powerful industry. There’s been years of massive propaganda— also well-documented.
— Xtrix

Climategate was also a real thing. — spirit-salamander

:roll:

On the other hand, says Ward, climategate did damage public policy-making in the UK and in other western countries. “Rightwing politicians, allied with fossil fuel companies, used their influence to spread false claims about the emails and to argue against policies to cut fossil fuel use. That propaganda campaign still continues today.” The use of illegally hacked emails in Climategate also shows deniers will resort to all sorts of underhand methods to confuse the public, Ward added. “I am sure they would do the same again today – so scientists are going to have to remain vigilant and be ready to fight back at any time.”

Another denialist talking point.

But what do the creationists have to do with all this? — spirit-salamander

Just that they say very similar things: "the science is unsettled," "science has been wrong," "how do we know for sure?", "there's no evidence," etc., and try to pretend that there's a rigorous "debate" between "evolutionists" (their word) and creationists. They try to portray themselves as skeptics and scientists who simply have a different interpretation of the evidence -- for example, that the Genesis flood was responsible for the fossils we see on earth.

Yeah, sure, maybe they're right too. "Who knows"?

The whole thing is just childish. If you talk to a climate scientist and come to them with your questions and skepticism, which is perfectly reasonable, they can answer your questions. Perhaps some questions aren't answerable -- and much is still uncertain, no doubt. But what you're engaging in isn't that -- it's taking climate "skeptics" positions and talking points and dressing it up as being a neutral observer. Yet you've demonstrated zero understanding of the evidence so far -- zero. You cite only climate "skeptics," you talk about how we can't trust the scientific community, you talk about "climate gate", "mass media hysteria," "alarmism," etc. All this points to the same direction: you've made up your mind already, and have indeed taken a side without the slightest effort to understand the evidence.

You've also hand-waved at a post of mine explaining climate change in detail, saying something about the use of "scientific graphs" while ignoring the rest. I doubt you read it. But it would do you some good to do so.

So let's not pretend this is anything but dressed up denial. If you deny the human impact of climate change, you're a climate change denier. And that's what you're doing.

By the way, do you think that your favorite philosophers Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger would have advised to take empirical science at face value? Since you have read them, you know that they would all be enemies of scientism. — spirit-salamander

This has nothing to do with "scientism." Please stop using terms you don't understand.

Yes, they would take science very seriously indeed. Certainly from Descartes (one of the "founders" of modern science) onward -- and that's obvious to anyone who's read them.

At "face value" is meaningless to me -- you can simply look at the evidence and arguments and make a decision as a layperson. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming; to deny it is ignorance, pure and simple.

I repeat, do you think astrology has been debunked? I just need a yes or no. — spirit-salamander

Of course it has. Astrology is nonsense. Astronomy, on the other hand, is fascinating.

It’s funny to see that climate deniers make many of the same arguments as creationists.

Certain predictions regarding water behavior would then simply be uncertain. An analogy to climate. — spirit-salamander

The temperature at which water boils isn’t uncertain.

How often have scientists been wrong in history? Actually, all the time. There is no reason to believe them, especially when they become absolutist with their ideas. — spirit-salamander

So there’s no reason to believe scientists, but Bjorn Lomborg is a citable source.

There’s every reason to believe when the evidence is overwhelming — which it is. You’d know this if you spent a little time reading beyond the WSJ editorial pages and fringe books by pundits and other non-climatologists.

But they seem to me to be more objective than the media coverage. — spirit-salamander

What media coverage are you referring to, exactly? Give any example.

Regardless, I’m not talking about the media, I’m talking about the scientific community. The IPCC is hardly mass media.

As said, the knowledge of the operations between the sun and the earth spheres is absolutely deficient. — spirit-salamander

No, it isn’t. What is the basis for such a claim?

Relying on what the current state of science says is not a good thing. — spirit-salamander

And the alternative to the overwhelming evidence and consensus is what? Bjorn Lonborg?

Sorry, but I’ll stick with the people who know what they’re talking about, having studied the issue all their lives.

So you would prefer to silence someone like me? That is, ban me from all online discussions. — spirit-salamander

No. Nor have I said saying remotely like that. You’re simply ignorant about climate science and have been taken in by the likes of Bjorn Lomborg. That’s not a crime.

Please stop making things up.

Today's science believes that the Earth's climate is an isolated thing: the climate changes largely because of greenhouse gases, and processes that come from outside the Earth are said to have only marginal influence.

I think it is the other way around. — spirit-salamander

Today’s science says NOTHING of the kind. Please cite any source that makes this claim.

This is more fabrication.

Begging your pardon, but you’re just another example of someone who’s been duped in my view. This cheap, uninformed skepticism you’re displaying isn’t an accident. The issue has been politicized by a very powerful industry. There’s been years of massive propaganda— also well-documented.

I'm not necessarily on Lomborg 's side either. It's just that the opposition seems to me to have abandoned objectivity to a large extent. And there are good reasons for my suspicion. — spirit-salamander

What "opposition"? You mean the entire scientific community? They've abandoned "objectivity"?

Also, I don't think the media is scaring us ENOUGH. We should be much, much more alarmed, given the evidence.

Though when it comes to climate, many seem to be tacitly muzzled by social pressure. — spirit-salamander

There is evidence that they have been extremely reluctant to talk about how dire the situation is, out of a desire not to appear "alarmist" or un-objective. That has been the social pressure.

I meant that TARP didn't make a significant impact, and it wasn't intended to. — Tate

Yes but TARP wasn't the Fed. That was legislation from Congress. I was talking specifically about monetary policy and its relation to inflation. It's certainly true that the bills this time around (for COVID) were MUCH larger, and that undoubtedly had an impact on inflation. No question.

I repost this as it may be helpful:

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:



That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

I was addressing the OP which states Climate Change as the biggest human problem and that I do not think that is the case at all. The biggest problem is more or less people as generally lacking the ability to communicate and discuss in a calm and civil manner rather than tarring and feathering anyone who appears deluded, evil or wrong. — I like sushi

Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood. The way you worded it was ambiguous in my view.

Incidentally, I don't think those who disagree are evil, but I do think they're ignorant and wrong. That often gets conflated.

And I would add that we still do not understand the properties and behaviors and operations of water in certain circumstances. — spirit-salamander

And...?

Remember what I said: we can be as certain of this as we are of anything. Yes, absolute knowledge and 100% certainty isn't possible. So what? We don't inject this truism into discussions about gravity or electromagnetism or walking out the door -- so why make it here?

We're as certain about the role of human activity on climate change rate as we are of anything. The evidence is overwhelming and available to all who wish to be educated about the issue. Does this include you or not? Are you interested in learning about it or not?

Again, this has been done by climatologists, among others. Plenty of information about it for those not hellbent on ignorance.
— Xtrix

In this regard, please read Bjorn Lomborg. — spirit-salamander

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climatologist. His writings are often misleading and have been shown to be misleading multiple times -- although I'm not surprised that this is the person you've chosen to follow. Ask yourself why you choose this person over the scientific community?

Steve Koonin — spirit-salamander

Yes, the author of the ridiculous "Unsettled" is now your second citation? Is this really what you've been filling your head with?

How about balancing it out and read what the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, or any reputable climate scientist has written about this?

Then why is it being discussed here in this forum? It can only be for the reason that science presupposes philosophy. — spirit-salamander

Lots of things are discussed on this forum.

True, science does have its roots in philosophy. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. What's being discussed is climate science. If you want to make a connection between the evidence from climate science and philosophy, be my guest.

How do you know you're not the ignorant one? — spirit-salamander

I could be. But it hasn't been demonstrated on this particular issue. Why? Because I'm citing scientists and evidence, not my own musings.

If you say they can't possibly be right, then you're not a true philosopher and have no business in this forum. — spirit-salamander

I'm really not interested in your sophomoric thoughts about what "true philosophy" is. So far you've cited two widely debunked non-climate scientists and repeated long-refuted claims about climate change. Forgive me if I question your judgment.

So it didn't inflate the money supply. — Tate

It did increase the money supply. For years the supply has increased, in fact.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0

Actually, no. — Tate

Actually, yes. The fact that the financial sector was the primary target is irrelevant. The entire global economy was on the brink of depression then -- it was on the brink of depression during COVID, as well. The Fed has a few tools to fight recessions. All of the tools used thus far has increased the money supply, and has done so for years.



https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/opinion/04meltzer.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html

The 700 billion loaned to banks was eventually paid back in full. — Tate

So what?

The pandemic response was specifically meant to stimulate the economy, where the Great Recession payouts were meant to shore up confidence and unfreeze credit. — Tate

Both were meant to stimulate the economy. The Fed printed money back then too and people screamed about inflation. Didn't come.

But you're right that there are multiple causes of inflation, one being the sluggishness of the Fed to respond before inflation had set into the American psyche. — Tate

Yes, the Fed should have raised interest rates last summer, at the latest.

Yes. We can be as sure of it as we are of anything.
— Xtrix

No, climate is an extremely complex thing and not like anything. — spirit-salamander

Boiling water is a complex thing too. It's fairly well understood though.

Tell people in Pakistan and California how beneficial it is.
— Xtrix

That is not a substantial response. I might say severe droughts have always existed. And natural catastrophes too. How do you know that there are many more now? This could be a distortion of perception. — spirit-salamander

Natural catastrophes have always existed. Believe it or not, climate scientists know this too.

How do we know there are many more now? Because we can count. We can measure frequency, duration, and intensity. Again, this has been done by climatologists, among others. Plenty of information about it for those not hellbent on ignorance.

Your whole response is unphilosophical. — spirit-salamander

Makes sense, since this isn't a philosophical matter. This is a matter of science and, in your case, ignorance.

No it is not. To question the possible effects of a changing climate is reasonable. — I like sushi

That's not what you said.

but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. — I like sushi

Human activity is the reason we see the rate of change we're seeing. There are people who have studied this their entire lives which will explain it to you -- the evidence is available to anyone with an internet connection or access to a library.

Like I said, a great many so-called ‘Climate Deniers’ are simply questioning nutcases at the other end of the scale who talk about human extinction. The kind of folks pushing for all kinds of policies that result in destructions of environments and poverty. — I like sushi

That's also not what you said.

But even this is stuff you'd hear in the WSJ editorial pages or Fox News. Who cares about "nutcases"? We're talking about scientists. The IPCC isn't a group of "nutcases," so what are we arguing against besides a straw man?

Why is that so hard to grasp? I am not saying there are not people who outright deny the human effect on climate change but THEY are quite ignorant. Questioning the impact our actions will have and have had is not denial. — I like sushi

What do you think climate scientists have been studying all these years?

For one, central governments and banks have no reason to admit being at fault. Economies are complex enough that it's always possible to find another patsy - financial markets, covid, the Ukraine war, etc. — Tzeentch

The Fed was printing plenty of money in 2009 too. No inflation.

An unprecedented global lockdown has major consequences. Claiming this is used as a "patsy" is laughable.

Inflation has multiple causes. One cause is the money supply. COVID's disruptions is another. The war is yet another.

This isn't difficult for anyone who isn't insistent on blaming one thing.

Can we be absolutely sure that we are primarily changing the climate? — spirit-salamander

Yes. We can be as sure of it as we are of anything.

Perhaps there is even no reason to panic at all, as some scientists, who seem objective to me, think: “Global warming is real. It is also – so far – mostly beneficial.” (Matt Ridley) — spirit-salamander

Tell people in Pakistan and California how beneficial it is.

But the chance that the train has already left seems very high to me, assuming that we are responsible for the mess. But why should 2030 be the point of no return? — spirit-salamander

No one is saying 2030 is the point of no return.

A great number of people are framed as ‘Climate Change Deniers’ when in fact they do not deny that the climate is changing, nor that humans have an effect on the climate, but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. This is a reasonable position to have. — I like sushi

No, it isn't. It's an ignorant position. It's a position which ignores the scientific consensus, decades of research, and overwhelming evidence available at a keystroke.

I’d say those are all relevant problems pertaining to his existential situation. I’d prioritize those questions over whether he believes abortion is a human right.

Some problems are more important than others. Not every problem is an existential one.

For those that are existential— than yes, they’re equally important. Nuclear weapons and climate change are existential — hence, they’re more important than others. Is there ONE problem or ONE cause? No, not always. But so what? My question is to provoke thought about the problems we face.

One need not hope in order to undertake, nor succeed in order to persevere.
-- William I, Prince of Orange — Olivier5

:up:

I find those quibbling over whether the term “existential threat” really applies to climate change rather amusing. Especially when it’s become clear, over and over again, that projections have been far too optimistic. The latest about the Greenland ice melt is one example.

There are solutions to climate change. Many of them are under way. Those who believe it’s hopeless are entitled to think so — they may be right. But we can’t act on that basis.

We should recognize that if global warming is an automatic consequence of capitalism, we might as well say goodbye to each other. I would like to overcome capitalism, but it’s not in the relevant time scale. Global warming basically has to be taken care of within the framework of existing institutions, modifying them as necessary. That’s the problem we face.

When we turn to human nature, the first thing to remember is that we know essentially nothing about it. It’s what I work on all the time. There’s a few small areas where there’s some understanding of cognitive human nature and very little about the rest. It’s all surmise.

If it is true that human nature is incapable of dealing with problems developing over a longer term, if that’s a fact about the way humans are structured and organized, we can, again, say goodbye to one another. So let’s assume it’s not the case.

Then we work within a set of parameters. The fundamental institutions are not going to change in time. Human nature allows the possibility of thinking about what’s going to happen in a couple of decades, even centuries. Assume all that.

Then we turn to solutions. And there are solutions within that set of assumptions. So let’s proceed and work on them. If those assumptions happen to be wrong, tough for the human species. It’s what we have. — Noam Chomsky

I think that sums it up better than I can.

About 30% of most issues is not "some". — Benkei

?

What would you call it?

It’s a lot — the Fed buys a lot of bonds. Maybe that’s what you’re getting at. The point I was making is that it’s one part of the overall debt — an important part, but not even the majority.

The whole point is that CPI is not an adequate measure when asset inflation has real life consequences for consumers with regards to housing and pensions. That inflation existed well before covid and Ukraine so really had nothing to do with either of them. — Benkei

I can’t speak for Holland, but in the US the housing market really took off around the start of COVID. I know this well only because it corresponded to when my wife and I started looking for a house. COVID changed a lot of behavior — but it wasn’t only that. It was also the Fed lowering rates to almost zero. That played a huge role — no denying it.

Maybe I have missed your point. If your main argument is that CPI doesn’t tell the whole story about inflation, I agree.

So you've just made Friedman's case that printing money causes inflation. It indirectly funds government expenditure (increased demand) because banks always have a buyer for bonds which governmental demand cannot be answered in a near full production environment. — Benkei

They buy some bonds. The Fed has been doing so for decades. During QE in 2009, they were doing it on steroids. People screamed of inflationary effects— and the CPI stayed roughly the same. It did, however, have effects on markets.

As I said before— I’m not saying that increasing the money supply has no effect on inflation. But it’s much more contained to the three main asset classes than to the economy as a whole.

What’s changed this time around is the fiscal stimulus and COVID programs put into place. And COVID itself, of course.

That's not just "some" inflation, that's a huge chunk of people's disposable income and should figure strongly in any inflation figures but usually doesn't — Benkei

Yes, housing is certainly affected by low interest rates. They’re one of the asset classes I mentioned. Having been in the market for the last two years I can tell you it’s not only interest rates, however. COVID played a large role in behavior as well.

That has nothing to do with covid and Ukraine — Benkei

It has a lot to do with COVID. It greatly changed supply and demand.

True, it has nothing to do with Ukraine — I never claimed otherwise.

Energy price and food inflation, that's Ukraine. Broken supply chains, that's covid. — Benkei

COVID factors into both— but Ukraine added to the problems, yes.

In any case, energy prices have a huge effect on all aspects of the economy, from plastics to cars to shipping costs. And those increases have led the charge. They haven’t led the charge because of the Fed. That’s the point.

Right. The Trump Party, where loyalty to the leader must be pledged and demonstrated, where even minimal descent will be punished, where there is no State only the whims and desires of Trump is a much better option. — Fooloso4

:fire:

It really is farcical isn’t it? The biggest Statist here claims to hate the state (now that Biden is president, of course).

Don’t look for principles or consistency. At the heart of it all is simple sociopathy.

Seriously, I don't get this type of reasoning, it's like saying to someone you will lose most of your limbs, your eyes, your stomach etc, but don't be alarmed we can keep you alive just fine by hooking you up to this machine for the rest of your life. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes indeed. :100:

We need to be alarmed. — Olivier5

Very alarmed.

Anyone who isn't an idiot understands why they stormed the Capitol. They were trying to stop the Electoral College vote. — Michael

Where’s the evidence? Besides them explicitly saying it, I mean. Who are we to look into the hearts and souls of these people?

We must be NUANCED. Except when it comes to BLM riots — screw those people.

I suppose if they had found Pence, there was a chance they’d have a reasonable, rational conversation with him, laying out their grievances. Can we REALLY say for sure?

Repeat after me: there was no insurrection. The people there were not there because the votes from a free election were being certified —they were there because the election was STOLEN, as told by the Great One. They were defending democracy, peacefully.

:starstruck:

Do you think they were there for selfies with Pence? — Fooloso4

They were there on a tour. They just forgot the visiting hours. Honest mistake.

Many were deleted. A lot of really bizarre stuff, claiming he’s God, etc. Was warned but kept at it. Could be a mental health issue (and I’m not saying this jokingly).

Anyway — it was clear cut.

Love to watch Trumpists try to square the circle in service of their delusions. :starstruck:

Insurrection to overthrow a free election? Nah, nothing but a little, tiny riot. Actually, not even a riot — it was a field trip that went wrong. Actually, not even that wrong — just some minor trespassing. Actually not even that, since technically we the people own that place.

So basically it was a tour. What’s everyone getting so upset about?

get the general idea, printing money →
→
inflation, but I don't understand the actual mechanism so to speak - — Agent Smith

Monetary policy — the actions of the federal reserve — inflate asset classes like stocks and housing. Currently, it accounts for some inflation— some.

Mostly inflation is the result of COVID and the war in Ukraine. People who want to reduce it all to “printing money” have read too much Milton Friedman, and are unwittingly giving cover to austerity policies, which will hurt mostly the working classes. But it’s not that simple.

The mechanism involved is this:

The treasury issues debt to fill the gap between expenditure and revenue — the deficit. That debt can be bought by individuals, companies, institutions, foreign countries, and even parts of the government itself. We run deficits every year— This is why we have a high national debt, which is the total of all deficits.

The federal reserve owns some of that debt — but only some. When they buy treasuries, they buy them from institutions. With what money? Mostly through “printing” money — in todays world, by adding digits to an account — which only they have the power to do.

The institutions are banks, mostly. If these banks hold more cash than bonds, they tend to lend out money and for better interest rates. More companies and individuals borrow, and you have more spending. This simulates the economy, in theory.

Banned @Yozhura for incoherent, delusional, low quality posts.

Are you OK buddy?

I really can’t make heads or tails of any of this either.