[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

So your loophole is that you are a purist. Unfortunately for you there is no absolute consensus on what inflation is. When I show that this is the case, you deny it and fall back on a theoretical stance that is academically exclusive.

Yes, I'm a purist. Got a problem with that? It should have been clear from the beginning that my argument was that rising prices are mostly the result of scarcity, not inflation in the purist sense. I'll go even further, and state that the use of the non-purist "all rising prices are inflation" is simply a cop-out, since it allows shifting/concealment of rising prices due to scarcity. So when the price of oil goes up, it's not because oil's actually getting harder to find - that would be unthinkable - it's because of inflation, which we know is all the fault of them Federal Reserve bureaucrats and their secret masters of the Trilateral Commission :-)

Therefore your narrowly defined position (as narrow as all your other positions) is the only one that matters in your own little universe. All others must be wrong but you.

Pot, meet kettle :-)

You never said "large". You said "decent". Every homeowner owns a decent tract of land, upon which his home stands.

OK, my fault for assuming you'd understand the context of what I wrote. But can we let that slide by, as I've since elaborated on it enough so that my original meaning should be abundantly clear?

There are still plenty of places in America where undeveloped property can be bought for relatively cheaply. But not if you have "champagagne tastes, but only a beer budget", and obviously that is the crux of your problem.

Please, tell me where :-)

I hope you realize that with that champagne vs beer statement, you only prove my argument, because it wasn't all that long ago, historically, when today's champagne land was available, not for beer prices, but free to anyone who'd settle on it.