Comment by Jerrrry | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jerrrry | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not complaining: I am pointing out that productivity took a massive shit, and it must recover, and have a surplus, to pay off the gains lost from inflation, which was caused by the increase in monetary supply.

True wages must go down for the surplus. If wages went up, productivity/gdp wouldn't increase, and we would make no progress on our nation deficit, and continue to see inflation.

I am not complaining, just stating the inconvenient, economic, hard truths; shooting the messenger is the laziest (apt) way of dismissing the argument, which is all you are mentally prepared to do.

you don't owe me anything, since you cannot combat my argument with logic; everyone owes everyone a productivity increase to make up for the free $1200 checks, and the printing of money.

your entitlement is showing. my point, again, demonstrated within.

complain to get free money, then complain the money isn't worth as much. you cant have both.

all my points, QED, with your responses so far.

anyone else wanna disprove anything I have stated?

read up MMT. then come back with some facts.

ill wait.

> "shooting the messenger is the laziest (apt) way of dismissing the argument"

> "your entitlement is showing."

> "complain to get free money, then complain the money isn't worth as much. you cant have both."

> "anyone else wanna disprove anything I have stated?"

1) your strawman of me complaining to get free money is something which didn't happen.

2) your strawman of me complaining that the money isn't worth as much didn't happen.

3) your repeated comments about "entitlement" is trolling ad-hominem, not something for disproving.

4) if I borrow $1200 from the bank, I don't "owe the bank a productivity increase", I owe the bank $1200. Whether that comes from me being more productive, or working more time into the future, is up to me.

5) The idea that people being more productive ==> paying down the national debt doesn't seem to match what happens. USA GDP has increased from 1Tn in 1970 to 23TN today. Or $5k per person to $65k per person(!)[1] National debt has risen consistently since 1970, not been paid down by this increase. And your statement that paying down the national debt == "progress". Progress to what goal? Nobody in power appears to care about the national deficit. It's only a talking point for Republicans to criticise Democrats. It's a fiction number that is expected to grow forever, there's no plan, attempt or incentive to ever pay it off. It's not a household debt, no President, politician, senator, will be held personally accountable for it.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-...

finally, some points!

4) if I borrow $1200 from the bank, I don't "owe the bank a productivity increase", I owe the bank $1200. Whether that comes from me being more productive, or working more time into the future, is up to me

bad analogy, since printing money is not a loan in traditional sense - government debt doesn't really make sense - it is a tax on future users of the currency, by means of productivity per dollar is decreased.

more like, if everyone got a loan, and the bank said "trust me bro"...because the dollars were literally invented, not loaned - which increases the total M1 money supply.

the hope was the velocity of the money would also increase, which inflation helps with - stagnating cash loses value constantly.

one way to measure this "tax" (the damage done by inflation) is by measuring the value of the dollar per common good (the BigMac index) and is by debt/GDP/person. Of course it is a political bartering chip; everything is, but is also a useful measure of this change in buying power relative to the dollar.

Business are going to be the first to reap the rewards of the increase in productivity. As they should. Taxes imply the government will be the secondary beneficiary.

A well-executed MMT would then use the excess capital for common-good reinvest, a la the Build Back better plan.

It's a dream, but that is how they hoped it worked.

> I'm not complaining

Sure you are. Your comment is a classic example of what I call 'sore winner' literature.

It's characterized by: a superior pontificating tone, a sense of entitlement tell others what to do, a certain intellectual rigidity, a tendency to assign readings, but most important of all, a tone of having been cheated out of something by random strangers on the internet.

Calculate your share, if you really must have it so badly, and I'll cut a penny down and mail it to you then.

winners telling losers how to win isn't a "sore winner" mentality, it is a charitable attempt to help others.

how am I simultaneously a winner, but feel cheated?

again, you literally quoted three words, strawmanned it up, and ignore the rest.

no substance to be found.

the "superior" tone is your perception, but if the issue being discussed (peoples not wanting to work), no discourse can be had without hints of condescension.

the labor shortage in the market cannot be discussed, because you think it is condescending... what a fantastic exchange of ideas, i am sure you are littered with nuanced views. /s (you are not.)

ironically, coincidentally, and incidentally, I am statistically probably the most "impoverished" here; allowing me actual insight into the markets you claim to have a moral aptitude towards.

people do not want to work. the left think the billionaires should make robots do it (see the above poster), the right are just tired of low-paying jobs that prevent them from being on welfare.

i know you didn't get this far, but if you have any substinant rebuttal to any or all of my arguments, im sure you would had presented at least one by now, instead of again, ad hominem and strawmans.

calling you a "fucktwit", deservingly, but also so @dang can read this, and maybe put thought into comment rankings, if he has some brain cells left from staring at walls of shallow dialogue all day.

Dude you come on real strong and tell people that they should work harder, or pay back money or whatever.

There's nothing to refute because you can't refute tone. Plus it's not my job to be your debate partner for free.

Basically, either don't tell people what to do, or set conditions on how they should debate you, or you will get voted down.

But really, I suspect you are getting just what you want, really, pissing people off and making a stink.

I happen to think he’s spot on, fwiw.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com