As you well know, nobody has been able to cite even a single lie. Instead, there have been a string of non sequitur posts and assorted dodges. So, can you spot even a single lie?
I didn't think so.
In Biden's first year, economic growth reached a 37-year high
- Thread starter gemini104104
- Start date
As you well know, nobody has been able to cite even a single lie. Instead, there have been a string of non sequitur posts and assorted dodges. So, can you spot even a single lie?
I didn't think so.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Because that's what your very first response to me within this thread (post #133) was about, which was already a diversion away from government deficits and debts. Holy fuck dude. Are you seriously THIS stupid or are you following the Demonkkkrat rule of "pretending not to know things"?
Yes, it is. That is what you described to the forum in your post #133.
You are now denying your own posts. It seems that we're done here.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Now you are lying about lying.
I have already cited a lie of yours, as have others. RQAA.
Yes, there has been, and those posts and dodges have been coming from an account with the moniker Mina. Are you familiar with that moniker by any chance?
RQAA. Stop asking repetitive questions.
Already did. Stop asking repetitive questions.
OK, let's look at 133:
When discussing fiscal stimulus, anyone with a brain will, of course, discuss changes to the deficit, not changes to the debt, for obvious reasons. Consider it in the context of a business, instead of a government, to see the point more easily. Let's say you work at a company that had $1 million of sales last year, while running a deficit of $100,000. That guy gets fired and you inherit the company, and cut the advertising budget, leaving the company with a $50,000 deficit, and, say $1.1 million in sales. Now, someone with no knowledge of business might conclude you did a worse job that your predecessor, since debt is now even higher than you inherited. But among people who aren't blithering imbeciles, that would be seen as a step in the right direction.... you relied less on new borrowing to advertise products, but still managed to boost sales. If you keep heading in the same direction, boosting sales and dropping deficits, debt will become a less and less burdensome problem, relative to revenues, and eventually you'll even be able to start paying down debt.
OK. Now, which part of that, specifically, makes you think I was discussing the long-term viability of a a business that is "continually operating at a loss." Feel free to point to any part of that which makes that point. Yes, that's right, you're unable to do so, since nothing I said was about a business continually operating at a loss. In fact, my conclusion is based on the hypothetical that you continue to boost sales and drop deficits, eventually getting into a position where you can start paying down debt -- a point I expressly made at the end (which, obviously, is not something you're going to be doing if you're operating at a loss.
As you can see, you lied about what this discussion was about. So, now a question to ask yourself: why? Why were you so desperate to try to score a point that you'd just outright lie about what was clearly in the thread for anyone to see? Did you just assume nobody would check? Or do you hold your reputation in such poor regard that you don't much care whether people see you lying?
Yet, as you know, nobody has been able to cite even a single lie from me. If you can do so, do it. The fact you dodge in post after post just underscores the fact that even you know you haven't been able to find anythign.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Yet another lie. Yet another RQAA.
Already did.
Projection.
Already did.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
The entirety of it.
The entirety of it.
I just did so.
The entirety of it was.
... IOW, continue to operate at a loss.
Debt doesn't get paid down when one is operating at a loss. Debt accumulates under such a scenario.
Yet you described operating at a loss, thus the paying down of debt is not occurring. Accumulating debt is not paying down debt. And I'm supposed to believe that you have "economics and finance degrees from a prestigious university"?? hahahahahahahahaha
Projection. That's what YOU'VE been doing. You've even resorted to lying about lying, as well as denying your own posts even after directly referencing them. You are mental.
Projection. You are describing yourself again.
Let me know if you spot a lie. As you're well aware, you haven't been able to identify even a single one yet.
No. Now you're just trolling. There was no reference to continual losses in anything I wrote. You know that. You just chose to lie about it. Have you no sense of shame?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Already done so numerous times. Ignoring the examples I provide doesn't make them go away.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
No, I am providing you with legitimate and serious answers. Ignoring them (and now mislabeling them as "trolling") does not make them go away.
Your whole post was about continuously operating at a loss because you are trying to claim that a government "reducing the deficit" (or, in your false equivalence business example, a business operating at a smaller loss than before) somehow leads to debt reduction. It doesn't... It leads to debt accumulation, and eventually a debt crash.
Your issues, not mine.
As you know, you haven't done it even once. So, can you?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Continued denial.
It wasn't. I quoted the entire post and it made no reference to a continual loss. Instead, it specifically referenced improvement until you were in a position to pay down debt. You just chose to lie about it, as you know.
No, dummy, I didn't say that. Reducing debt generally requires running a surplus. What I very clearly discussed was a period when the government, despite generally running deficits year after year, REDUCED DEBT AS A SHARE OF GDP, and thus made it a smaller relative burden. Go back and reread. Then, once you've confirmed that's what I actually said, if you have the character, apologize for libeling me. I won't hold my breath. Right-wingers lie shamelessly, so even after you confirm that you misstated my argument, I don't expect you'll apologize.
I'm waiting. Just cite a single example, little one.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
It was.
The whole post was describing a scenario in which a company was operating at a loss.
No, it referenced operating at a smaller loss than the prior year. That is still operating at a loss. That is not an improvement with regard to the health of the company, as it is still operating at a loss.
This "position" never occurs, as the company is STILL OPERATING AT A LOSS... It is STILL BEGGING FOR ADDITIONAL LOANS TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS... That is not a good sign.
The lies are all yours. Own them.
Now you are denying yet another part of your argumentation... You really won't stand behind anything you say, will you?
Not within our discussions.
No. Your argument concluded that the government (or business) would be able to start paying down debt, not that "debt would reduce as a share of GDP".
Did you know that current debt exceeds GDP?
Did you know that GDP is not the economy?
Did you know that GDP is not government revenue?
Did you know that "reducing the deficit" means that government debt is still increasing?
No need.
It's not.
Absolutely not, as no libel occurred.
Darn...
Your issue, not mine.
I didn't.
I won't, because I have nothing to apologize for.
Economic shrinkage is the opposite of economic growth. Inflation can coexist with economic growth.
No, because GDP is adjusted for inflation. So if there is exactly the same rate of production and sales, whatever the cost of things, there is the same GDP. This really is not complex. Some very smart people have thought this through, and are not making the obvious mistakes you are claiming.
You only need two nations to have a full scale war. The American Civil War had only one nation involved, and it was a full scale war. Even if you argue the Confederacy was its own nation, that only makes two.
There is clearly a full scale war in Europe, but luckily not a Europe-wide war in Europe.
Biden has a 50 year career of sitting down with different parties and working things out. For you not to realize this is saying a lot about you.
The technical definition of hyperinflation is usually an annualized rate of 10,000%. That is the point people really start to lose any faith in their money. 50% would just be very high inflation, of the sort we see in third world nations. Double digit inflation would be considered high for a first world nation.
We have not even seen double digit inflation, and are nowhere near hyperinflation. There is absolutely no reason to believe there will be hyperinflation. In fact, the mortgage market is pricing in long term inflation of under 4%. That is higher than the target of 2%, but nowhere near 10,000%.