[Thymeclock]

Quote:
The term "inflation" originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation, and some economists still use the word in this way.

Yes, that is the correct definition of inflation. Changing the language so it means what you want it to mean isn't playing fair...

"Playing fair"? So yours is the sole, exclusive and "correct" definition of inflation? Again you pull one tiny bit of a whole quote out of context to try to support your view.

Read the entire quote again:

"However, most economists today use the term "inflation" to refer to a rise in the price level. An increase in the money supply may be called monetary inflation, to distinguish it from rising prices, which may also for clarity be called 'price inflation'.[23] Economists generally agree that in the long run, inflation is caused by increases in the money supply. However, in the short and medium term, inflation is largely dependent on supply and demand pressures in the economy."

It isn't what "I" want it to mean. It's what it DOES mean. By now I don't expect you to understand or acknowledge that, because you just want to perpetuate an endless contentious argument. You are living in your own virtual world, apart from reality and you think that if you just repeat the same things ad infinitum your argument will become worthwhile.

Quote:
And it costs more to do the survey, and it costs more to buy or lease the drilling equipment, and it costs more in every other aspect - but you choose to ignore all that because it doesn't bolster your narrow argument.

It costs more (in large part) because there is more effort involved: you have to send survey teams to more distant places, use faster computers & more complex software to analyze the data, use vastly more complex drilling rigs & drill far deeper to get to the oil... None of this is inflation, however you want to define it.

If it costs more it IS price inflation. What part of "it costs more" do you not understand?

Quote:
"Saving" it from what, exactly?

Keeping it so that it is a good place to live, of course. Do you clean your house & maintain it? Or do you let the dirt accumulate & trash pile up in the yard, and let everybody and his brother use it as a crash pad?

You love to argue and you didn't answer the question. I think you would make a great career politician. (Maybe there might be room for one more, as they are a dime a dozen.)

Quote:
There are fifty states, probably a zillion real estate listings for available property in them and you say "No place on Earth where I could afford to own a decent tract of land".

Look at the prices on those real estate listings, then look at my bank account :-)

Okay. Now 'put your money where your mouth is' and post your financial holdings as well as the house you said you live in, so we all can see it.

But why should anyone here care about this? If people are turned off about this thread it's because you continue to drag all this exterraneous garbage (your personal life) into the discussion as a diversion from the main topic.

Then consider that I'm probably in at least the upper 20% of Americans. If I can't afford it, what hope does the rest of the country have, not to mention the world?

<sigh> You apparently need a financial counselor as well as a psychological one.

Quote:
So according to your bizarre, radical definition, every homeowner in America is "super-rich". Do you realize how absurd all these statements of yours sound?

No, do you realize your own ability to read simple English? Most homeowners live on small plots of land: usually not more than an acre, often much less.

Again, I quote you verbatim:

"It's just the reality of an overcrowded planet: only the super-rich can afford to own land."

That means that everyone, including YOU, is by your own definition "super-rich".

I think we all can "read simple English" and remember that is exactly what you said.

Quote:
And finally we now have an admission of your subscription to the old Malthusian nonsense...

What do you mean, finally? If you'd asked, I'd have told you from the start. And it's only nonsense to those terminally invested in wishful thinking...

Okay Mr. Malthusian, you are only a few centuries behind the times, touting a worthless, arcane theory.

Quote:
I said: Why do you feel a NEED for 100 acres or more upon which to live? Do you have a need to be alone, away from society?

And I replied that I can't tell you WHY, all I can tell you is that I do. It's built in, and seems the normal, natural, & desireable way to live. Tell me why would you want to live surrounded by houses, streets, &c? (And not economic reasons: assume you've won the lottery, and can afford to live where you choose.)

I managed to live where I choose through effort and planning, not by winning the lottery. Most Americans do, or have done so. Again, you attempt to drag an irrelevant hypothesis into the discussion as a diversionary tactic. Apparently you'd rather whine and say it is impossible for you to find satisfaction, despite your having said previously that you do own a house of your own. Considering your mindset, apparently it is impossible... for you.

Likewise, why would you think that living in a place where I have a bit of space & natural landscape around me equates to being alone or rejecting society? Quite the contrary: it's only (in my experience, at least) when you have few neighbors that you can actually get to know them as people. If I wanted real social isolation, I'd move to Manhattan.

I have news for you. Many people live in Manhattan (and all over the globe) and they are only as socially isolated as they choose to be. Your assumptions and rationalizations are literally fantastic! (As in fantasy ridden.)

Quote:
Then why did you voice your disdain for "Mc Mansions"?

For the same reason I'd voice my "disdain" (though that's really the wrong word) for favelas & shantytowns, except that then it'd be tempered with an understanding of poverty. I can understand living like that when you have to ('cause I've been there); what I can't understand is doing it by choice.

Mmm, hmm. Your class envy is showing. But you disdain both a humble domain and an ostentatious one, and cannot be satisfied with anything in-between, yet blame it on something other than yourself. That's a real problem.

Quote:
And why did you cite the real estate listing for an enormous tract of land that virtually no one can afford?

Enormous? You have to be kidding: it's only about 40 acres, which is quite small by my standards. And the fact that virtually no one can afford it simply proves my contention that there are few if any places left where an ordinary person can afford to own a decent-sized bit of land.

Your "standards"? No, they are not standards, merely your immature desires for insatiable gratification. You have champagne tastes but only a beer budget. This is the attitude of a spoiled child.