Quote from 2cents:
and exactly how is this of any relevance to your suggestion that public debt / gdp ratio leads to hyperinflation jimmy, and to your claim that 'we have seen the beginnings of hyperinflation'? all i am saying is that you are talking thru your ass matey, and the only one who is making pompous claims of intellectual superiority etc here all along this thread is you... you're the only one who is preoccupied by notions of superiority, and by being 'right', at all costs, even on stuff you obviously know very little about.... except you have nothing to show... what does 'good faith' mean to you jimmy? just another 'game theory' concept i guess...
2cents,
You have, throughout this thread, continually insulted me and proclaimed your intellectual superiority. I subjected your ridiculous claim to the ridicule it deserves, with the result that you are now backing away from your claim of superiority. I also replied that I would prefer to discuss the underlying question of the dollar's fate, rather than argue over who is superior. Yet you have continued to insult me, and you now assert that I am an "intellectual fraud". (I wonder, is it better or worse to be an "intellectual fraud", as opposed to just a plain vanilla, run-of-the-mill "fraud"?)
Let me address another example of your inability to comprehend viewpoints different from your own. I never said that all public debt causes hyperinflation; I said that an excessive ratio of public debt to gdp can help cause hyperinflation.
You wrote, in this thread, that hyperinflation is impossible, because:
hyperinflation: there is not even the beginning of the start of anything more than tepid above-desired-historical-average inflation right now... i mean we could talk about when the arcturians attack as i said but whats the point really??
I thought this was a rather circular argument, that future hyperinflation is impossible, because it hasn't started yet. I then countered that excessive uncontrolled expansion of the public debt, as a percentage of gdp, is a first step toward hyperinflation, but my use of your terminology, regarding the "beginning" of hyperinflation, was a mistake on my part, which has contributed to your inability to understand my viewpoint. I should have called it a first step toward hyperinflation, rather than a beginning of hyperinflation; this would have better expressed the meaning I intended, in seeking to counter your circular argument.
Keep in mind that one can never really draw the line between the end of normal inflation and the beginning of hyperinflation. Is not a rise in inflation the beginning of hyperinflation? The transition from inflation to hyperinflation is a perfect example of the idea of a "slippery slope". I think it conceivable that the extremely rapid appreciation of real estate values, in the U.S. and in many other countries, is a symptom of too many U.S. dollars and public and private dollar-denominated debt instruments, keeping the world awash in so much easy money, that the result may have been either a real estate bubble which will burst, or the leading edge of the first wave of the coming hyperinflation, or both, or neither.
You ask how is Germany's Weimar Republic hyperinflation relevant to our discussion of whether the dollar might hyperinflate. I am surprised by this question. The answer seems so obvious to me. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it", we were told, by the late philosopher George Santayana. I suppose your disinterest in the historical dimensions of our discussion exemplifies what we were told by the late playright George Bernard Shaw: "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."
I have asked you to explain why you believe that the public debt imposed upon Weimar Germany, by the Treaty of Versailles, had nothing to do with Germany's hyperinflation between the two world wars. Isn't it rather straightforward? Wouldn't you say that the excessive public debt pressured Weimar Germany to print too much money, in an effort to capture revenue by inflating its own currency; but that once control was lost, it could not be regained, and so Weimar hyperinflated its currency into worthlessness. Please, oh, please, 2cents, I beg you to bring your self-proclaimed, superior intellect to bear on this great riddle of history, which I am sure puzzles all the greatest minds in finance: Why does 2cents believe the Weimar hyperinflation experience irrelevant to a discussion of whether the dollar might possibly hyperinflate in the future?
I guess one of the advantages of a superior intellect, like yours, 2cents, is that you can afford to ignore history, and yet somehow manage to be right about the future. I guess this sets you well above lazy frauds like myself, who must examine history in an effort to understand the present and the future.
Your comments that I try to be right at all costs are utter nonsense. My primary position, throughout this thread, has been that I do not know the answer. How can I try to be right at all costs, if I admit that I do not know the answer?
My secondary position, throughout this thread, has been that you also do not know the answer. I have repeatedly stated that your answer, that dollar hyperinflation, panic, or collapse, will never happen, might be correct; and I have only questioned the reasoning process by which you arrived at that conclusion, and I think I have done a good job of raising doubts about your claim that you have everything all figured out.
Your most recent post says "all i am saying is that you are talking thru your ass matey". If this is all you are saying, does it mean that you are backing away from your claim that you have the dollar's future all figured out? Does this mean you are backing away from your claim that dollar hyperinflation, panic, and collapse are impossible? If you are backing away from these various claims, then I would say I have accomplished something of value in this thread. Are you backing away?
I also fail to grasp your continued, increasingly shrill accusations of "fraud" and lack of "good faith" on my part. I don't understand what, specifically, you think I am lying about, other than your contention that I am trying to look smarter than I really am. I think that my ridicule forced you to back away from your ridiculous claim of intellectual superiority, so that now, you must find some other way to demonstrate your superiority, without explicitly proclaiming yourself superior to the masses. This is why you are vaguely accusing me of fraud. You need to denigrate me, to make me inferior to the masses, to punish me for interfering with your efforts to feel superior to the masses. If I won't let you feel superior to everybody, you can at least try to take me down a notch, so that you can at least feel superior to me.
If you have any consideration for the other people reading this thread, you will stop harping on questions of intellectual superiority and intellectual fraud, and try to focus on the discussion topic. I'm sure everyone is dying to see your own historical analysis of the question, or your own game-theoretic analysis of the question, or really anything that focuses on the topic, instead of your ridiculous proclamations of superiority, and your equally ridiculous accusations of fraud.
