[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Yes, I'm a purist. Got a problem with that?

It's not my problem. It's your problem if you want to be in denial about what inflation is.

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.

If you ask any ordinary person what the term is for rising prices, they will say "inflation". The government is in denial of it (by removing fuel and food from the inflation index) and you are also in denial. But everyone else notices that the fuel and the food prices steadily continue to increase. So we're all supposed to pretend that the loss of purchasing power is not devaluation.

Here's an actual dictionary definition: "Econ. a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money." (from Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, 1999)

Predictably, you will disagree, argue and be in denial of a dictionary definition, as well.


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

Please, tell me where :-)

It's not my job to tell you where. You knew where to find a real estate listing that purported to support your inane argument. Now you can go find other listings for properties that are more reasonably priced. But you will reject them all, because they won't meet your "standards". To you, everything is too expensive.

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.

Oh, silly me for expecting your actual words to be accurate and not being clairvoyant enough to understand the true meaning belying them. I though you only meant the price was too high (which would be indicative of inflation, which you deny). Now the REAL truth comes out. No, you want to be given land FOR FREE. You want something of value to be given to you FOR NOTHING.

Now I see what you really meant when you said "No place on Earth where I could afford to own a decent tract of land." That's a hallmark of Socialism and Communism: "to each, according to his need". Except in your case it is even worse. Your expectation is: Give it to me, according to my desire.

Now it all makes sense! You are disappointed that there are virtually no pure Socialist countries left on Earth, and nobody is going to give you any free land. Oh, you poor Red baby! But you are free to believe whatever crazy ideas you want in a free world. I have no problem with your being a disgruntled Socialist. Your attitude and your irrational desires are YOUR problem.