Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrew_ | Hacker News Reader

While I do believe supply chain issues had a lot to do with triggering, I cannot look past the invention of 1.5 trillion dollars that were injected into the economy, nor can I look past the hit to labor resulting from government policies around covid . The use of "temporary" or "transitory" was political damage control, the tail wagging the dog.

I view your comment as more of the kind of spin that we're seeing in the media right now; conveniently ignoring larger and more obvious sources of trouble, in order to deflect and downplay the seriousness of the situation.

View on HN

But you DO look past the purpose of that injection of money, which was to protect jobs/economy. Whether it could have been implemented is one thing to be debated; to assume/pretend it had absolutely no positive effect, and that we would have been off than we are currently without it, seems disingenuous.

To the argument within my comment, the purpose of the money is of no consequence. It is merely fact that the money was injected. The moral consequences or beneficiary of that money don't have bearing on the fact that the money was injected, and would have negative long-term effect.

Right, and not injecting the money would have a negative long-term effect. I'm saying while it's difficult to be sure, it's at least reasonable to conclude that we traded a short term disaster for smaller long-term pain.

Maybe you disagree, but I don't get why people are acting like this is sinister.

it would seem that you are basing aspects of argument on feelings, perceived individual benefit, and speculation. That's not a debate I'm interested in engaging in. I prefer to look at the facts as they are at present.

But how can you argue that we're living in a world that's worse than if we hadn't done the stimulus when you haven't lived in that world?

I'm not and have not argued that. That's where I believe you may be leading with emotion.

As an aside it's pretty bad form to accuse the person you're talking to be emotional. It's implies that your argument is logical and correct, and the other person's is incorrectly clouded.

Can you clarify what your argument about the stimulus is then?

As an aside it's pretty bad form to continue to try and draw a person into an argument they've repeatedly stated they're not attempting to make nor have interest in joining. Stop trying to make fetch happen.

I have no argument for, against, nor interest in engaging in the shaving of a yak that is bald. You're in a debate with a single participant.

I'm not trying to "draw" you into an argument, I'm responding to my best faith interpretations of your posts. That is not considered bad form. That you refuse to clarify and call me emotional is.

Why are your kind so desperate to spin this situation into anything remotely positive? Is it buyer's remorse? Tribalism? Desperation?

We're in deep shit. A lot of people saw it coming, a lot of people ignored the warnings. A lot of people tried to spin this like it was no big deal "nothing to see here, all is well." It doesn't matter if this is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont - we're in the shit now, and that's all that matters.

Does your explanation for inflation have zero impact from general social sentiment? i.e. - Purely due to the levers of monetary and labour policies?

If so, what is the explanation for inflation occurring in countries all over the globe, even those without monetary injections or business closures?

If not, and there is some level of impact from individuals thinking "it feels like there's about to be inflation, so I'm going to act like there's inflation now", wouldn't there be a net benefit to that kind of messaging?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com