Record High Gas Prices?

[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.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

"Playing fair"? So yours is the sole, exclusive and "correct" definition of inflation?

Nope, not MY definition at all. The ORIGINAL definition, by economists.

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

OK, let's take a simple instance. You could, today, build a 1930s-capability drilling rig for not all that much money - well under $560K, let's say. (In fact, you could probably use a water well-drilling rig.) That would be far, far cheaper than the $560 million price tag of an ocean-going drilling rig like the Deepwater Horizon. So what part, exactly, of that price difference is due to inflation, however defined?

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.

What? You castigate me for dragging personal stuff in (not that I do, except by way of illustrative examples), now you demand that I supply even MORE personal information? Watch out: your logic is about to implode :-)

<sigh> You apparently need a financial counselor as well as a psychological one.ion, every homeowner in America is "super-rich". Do you realize how absurd all these statements of yours sound?

From over here it seems that you're the one who needs some tutoring in basic reading comprehension. I'll spell it out one more time: what I said is that most Americans can't afford to own large tracts of land. Now TAKEN IN CONTEXT, along with the link to an example that I described as not very large, anyone a) capable of comprehension; and b) not intent on creating an argument (another of your faults that you displace onto me) would have understood that by large, I meant areas significantly greater than the typical surburban lot.

I don't know whether you fail on a or b, or both, but it is getting tiresome.

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

Yes, I tout all sorts of worthless, arcane theories. Like for instance Newtonian mechanics, evolution, economics according to Adam Smith... You see, the thing about these worthless theories is that although they may be centuries behind the times, they happen to work :-)

I managed to live where I choose through effort and planning, not by winning the lottery. Most Americans do, or have done so.

Do you really live exactly where & how you choose? Or do you, like most people, merely do the best you can given your limited resources? And manage to delude yourself into believing that it's what you really wanted?

In any case, you're not answering the question, and if you can't/won't answer it, why should you expect me to? And again, who injected personal stuff by asking such questions? You, that's who. Typical self-delusion, to project your own faults on others.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Nope, not MY definition at all. The ORIGINAL definition, by economists.

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. 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.

Quote:
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.

What? You castigate me for dragging personal stuff in (not that I do, except by way of illustrative examples), now you demand that I supply even MORE personal information? Watch out: your logic is about to implode

It has nothing to do with logic, You did drag in personal examples, and when asked to back it up you refuse to answer. It is you that wants to have it both ways: you float a personal example and then you expect that it be accepted on blind faith.

From over here it seems that you're the one who needs some tutoring in basic reading comprehension. I'll spell it out one more time: what I said is that most Americans can't afford to own large tracts of land.

Really??? Find an exact quote where you ever said "large tracts of land". (My emphasis). You never said that at all, which is why I challenged the absurdity of it right from the start. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension - but I'm not a clairvoyant, nor should I need to be one to read your nonsense!

Now TAKEN IN CONTEXT, along with the link to an example that I described as not very large, anyone a) capable of comprehension; and b) not intent on creating an argument (another of your faults that you displace onto me) would have understood that by large, I meant areas significantly greater than the typical surburban lot.

What context? Here again, is exactly what you said, quoted verbatim:

But there is no elsewhere, at least that I know of. No place on Earth where I could afford to own a decent tract of land.

You never said "large". You said "decent". Every homeowner owns a decent tract of land, upon which his home stands. And despite your trying to now provide rationalizations, your whole argument is bogus anyway. And not only did you not say in America: no, you stated "on Earth"!!!

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. And it is, exclusively, YOUR problem.

I don't know whether you fail on a or b, or both, but it is getting tiresome.

It certainly does get tiresome pointing out what someone thought they said as opposed to what they actually did say.

Do you really live exactly where & how you choose? Or do you, like most people, merely do the best you can given your limited resources? And manage to delude yourself into believing that it's what you really wanted?

Absolutely, I do. Again, it is apparent that you can't conceptualize of anyone being happy or satisfied with what they own. You think that everyone is as dissatisfied as you are, and your attitude is apparent, reinforced by your constant repetition of it.

In any case, you're not answering the question, and if you can't/won't answer it, why should you expect me to?

I just answered the question (again). Actually, I already DID answer it previously: "I managed to live where I choose through effort and planning, not by winning the lottery. Most Americans do, or have done so."

See? You forgot that I did - or, more likely you are being provocative by deliberately ignoring what I said and asking again.

It is you who refuses to accept the answer. It's not just "tiresome", it's impossible to engage you in meaningful discussion.

And again, who injected personal stuff by asking such questions? You, that's who. Typical self-delusion, to project your own faults on others.

You conveniently forget that every question I ask is in response to some odd statement you made.

Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

[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.

[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.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

If you ask any ordinary person what the term is for rising prices, they will say "inflation".

Oh, so now I'm to blame because the ordinary person has been misinformed? If we were discussing nuclear power, should I surrender to the "Omigawd, it's radioactive, we're all gonna die!" hysteria? Should I accept creationism or the "SUVs are safe" myths, because the ordinary person believes them?

The government is in denial of it (by removing fuel and food from the inflation index) and you are also in denial.

Sorry, but still no. It's you who's in denial, and is trying to blame the government (and their secret masters on the Trilateral Commission, eh?) for something that's actually being caused by supply & demand.

So we're all supposed to pretend that the loss of purchasing power is not devaluation.

Try "admit" instead of "pretend". The increase in cost of oil (and oil-related goods, etc) is due to the increased cost of a diminishing resource. Calling it inflation is nothing more than a way of hiding this, so that you can go on fooling yourself.

It's not my job to tell you where.

Translation: He's not even going to look at the evidence, since his political opinions transcend such mundane things :-)

Now it all makes sense! [I]You are disappointed that there are virtually no pure Socialist countries left on Earth...

And now you've descended into utter irrationality. Like the US in the 19th century was by any stretch of the imagination a socialist country?

I could also point out, if there are any rational people still reading, that there's a considerable difference between "give" and "is cheap or free because supply greatly exceeds demand", and that increased population has changed that to "very expensive because demand exceeds supply". Simple, isn't it? I'd even say obvious, at least to anyone willing to take off their political blinders :-)

[Thymeclock]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
If you ask any ordinary person what the term is for rising prices, they will say "inflation".

Oh, so now I'm to blame because the ordinary person has been misinformed? If we were discussing nuclear power, should I surrender to the "Omigawd, it's radioactive, we're all gonna die!" hysteria? Should I accept creationism or the "SUVs are safe" myths, because the ordinary person believes them?

No one mentioned "blame" but you. No one mentioned irrational myths but you. As usual, you will drag in exterraneous crap to try to change the subject, hoping your diversionary tactic will work. It doesn't.

Most ordinary people accept dictionary definitions. You don't. That's all there is to it.

Quote:
The government is in denial of it (by removing fuel and food from the inflation index) and you are also in denial.

Sorry, but still no. It's you who's in denial, and is trying to blame the government (and their secret masters on the Trilateral Commission, eh?) for something that's actually being caused by supply & demand.

To you every economic event is only caused by "supply and demand". You are a 'Johnny one note' who knows no other song. And again you try to drag in exterraneous crap that no one mentioned but you.

Re: 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.

response:
Please, tell me where :-)

Quote:
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.

response:

Translation: He's not even going to look at the evidence, since his political opinions transcend such mundane things :-)

What I said needs no ad hominem "translation" from you. If you do your homework, you will find reasonably priced property. I refuse to do your research or your shopping for you.

But the real issue is that by your own admission, you want property given to you for FREE! Go see a realtor and tell him you want a beautiful "LARGE" tract of land (or even a small lot) but you don't want to pay anything for it. They will laugh you out of their office, as well they should.

Quote:
Now it all makes sense! [I]You are disappointed that there are virtually no pure Socialist countries left on Earth...

And now you've descended into utter irrationality. Like the US in the 19th century was by any stretch of the imagination a socialist country?

Your expectation of free land from a government is one that in modern times has been only implemented by Socialist / Communist regimes, with redistribution of property. Your attitude and expectation to be given free land was in fashion during the Russian revolution. If you want '40 acres and a mule' get into your time machine and go back to the Civil war if you want some free land in America. Land grants in America ended a long time ago. You are not only living in the past, you are a wannabe freeloader, living in your own self-created universe. Your attitude is one of disappointment that America has changed. Too bad you were born too late. Go cry in your beer.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

As usual, you will drag in exterraneous crap to try to change the subject, hoping your diversionary tactic will work. It doesn't.

That's a really interesting tactic: you accuse the other person of doing what you've been doing all along, so as to distract attention from the fact that you've been doing it.

Most ordinary people accept dictionary definitions. You don't. That's all there is to it.

Sure. Most people are willing to accept authority, instead of actually thinking for themselves.

To you every economic event is only caused by "supply and demand". You are a 'Johnny one note' who knows no other song.

Again, no. It's just that the (fairly small) subset of economic events we've been discussing here are in fact caused by supply & demand - which is not at all surprising, since supply & demand are in fact the principal motivating force of a market economy.

What I said needs no ad hominem "translation" from you.

"Ad hominem"? Now weren't you just complaining about me not accepting your dictionary definitions? Suggest you look up the definition... No, I'll even save you the effort: Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pointing out that you are unwilling/unable to provide data to support your argument doesn't fit the definition, even when I employ sarcasm.

But since we're on the subject of ad hominem attacks, let me point out (as if you didn't know!) that that's exactly what you've been doing all along, as for instance your attempt to portray my comments re rising land prices as evidence of some sort of character flaw - so your nicely-circular argument is that land prices shouldn't matter, since no normal person would ever want to buy such large amounts of land. Then of course you have to follow up with all sorts of personal attacks in support...

Really, is it all that hard to just admit that you're wrong?

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

That's a really interesting tactic: you accuse the other person of doing what you've been doing all along, so as to distract attention from the fact that you've been doing it.

Non-responsive, as usual. Now you have descended to arguing about arguing.

Quote:
Most ordinary people accept dictionary definitions. You don't. That's all there is to it.

Sure. Most people are willing to accept authority, instead of actually thinking for themselves.

You sound like a 'rebel without a cause'. Why not dismiss every word in the dictionary, including language and grammar? Do you see how absurd your response is? That your rejection of a dictionary definition is based upon your saying it is authoritarian? Your stated position is that those who accept a dictionary definition are incapable of "actually thinking for themselves". That's just another non sequitur, illogical conclusion you draw, but it's not surprising after having seen so many others from you. You have a rationalization for everything - but that's all you have, baseless rationalizations.

Re:"What I said needs no ad hominem "translation" from you."

"Ad hominem"? Now weren't you just complaining about me not accepting your dictionary definitions? Suggest you look up the definition... No, I'll even save you the effort: Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pointing out that you are unwilling/unable to provide data to support your argument doesn't fit the definition, even when I employ sarcasm.

Your reply ("translation") was once again non-responsive to the point made, nothing but an attack, sarcasm included. When I made my point you offered nothing but diversionary sarcasm in response. Here it is again:

"What I said needs no ad hominem "translation" from you. If you do your homework, you will find reasonably priced property. I refuse to do your research or your shopping for you."

"But the real issue is that by your own admission, you want property given to you for FREE! Go see a realtor and tell him you want a beautiful "LARGE" tract of land (or even a small lot) but you don't want to pay anything for it. They will laugh you out of their office, as well they should."

The important thing is that you did not deny it and still cannot deny it, because it is the truth. I have quoted your absurdities and addressed them point by point, and you virtually never quote me in return (because your tactic is to interject diversions instead). Having covered every contention you ever made in this long thread you never respond to my refutation of them, and so they stand unchallenged. All that you now have left in defense of your arguments is pure sarcasm. That speaks for itself.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Non-responsive, as usual.

And why do you think I should respond, when you've degenerated to nothing but what you obviously intend as a series of personal attacks? Which (unfortunately for your purpose) are only laughable, since your overwhelming ignorance has ensured that they're wildly off-target :-)