For example, so many people claiming the slippery slope argument was illegitimate as early as 5 years ago. All those threads were memory holed.

I see that as very unhelpful.

Rhose are part of the legitimate history of debate on this website. That history is instructive to further debate.

For instance, there was a similar debate on the politics board about whether modern monetary policy was going to be harmful to consumers. Since the experts said no, a few people argued that printing more and more money would be harmless. Now a meal at McDs costs $12.

The only benefit of deleting the past that I can see is to prevent "I told you so posts".

What say you R&P? Do the benefits of deleting the past outweigh the costs? Are we sacrificing the legitimacy of the arguments of this board by memory holing threads that contain powerful but inconvenient truths?

I have no idea about any specific instances, but I think people should be able to bring up old threads. It's not like religion or philosphy is time sensitive

I've got no interest in looking through his entire search history, but in general it is pretty easy to figure out what threads a person has started. It's easily found in their profile. For example, this link will take you to a list of every thread Seamaster has started. I see plenty of topics from the R&P board regarding homosexuality and marriage or similar topics.

And there's no way your $12 McDonald's meal was $6 last year. I call BS. Unless you changed your order.

I'll just leave this right here.

Fast food price increases since Joe Biden came into office. It isn’t your imagination, fast food is insanely more expensive than it used to be. This is Bidenomics. pic.twitter.com/m2ZFDOAgX4

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 21, 2024

BusterAg said:

---

Can you please find me a thread started by Seamaster where he said that legitimizing gay marriage was going to lead to people teaching homosexually is appropriate to grade schoolers, and many posters said that this is a ridiculous slippery slope argument that would never happen.

Trust me when I say dozens of these existed at one time.

---

I think it's a liability thing, primarily. The thread itself may be ok but some posters get out of hand and they choose to just nuke the thread out of an abundance of caution vs parsing through what should and shouldn't stay. Especially with all of the potential "publishing" concerns a few years back. I don't think they have some sort of agenda other than self-preservation.

ETA: and that self-preservation took priority over a careful culling of inappropriate posts.

Rocag said:

---

Gee, I wonder why their starting point was the end of 2019. What could have possibly happened around the end of 2019 or beginning of 2020 that could have affected prices? I guess we'll never know.

Also, those prices seemed a bit suspect to me so I decided to do a quick check on the McDonalds app. However, prices differ by location so those could be right for some places. But for a typical one in Collin County I got:

Medium Fries = $2.89 (not $4.19)
McChicken = $1.99 (not $3.89)
Big Mac = $4.99 (not $7.49)
10 McNuggets = $4.99 (not $7.58)
Cheeseburger = $1.59 (not $3.15)

To be fair, their Taco Bell prices look closer to what I'd expect. No clue on Chick-fil-A. Not a fan.

---

Yep. Though I'm sure they've risen since then too, I wonder what they were on January 19, 2021.

People are so ****ing selective. Rah rah my political party better than yours - nobody actually gives a **** about fixing the actual issue.

Covid and $5T in stimulus. Who could have imagined that was inflationary?!

I think it's been baked in for a long time but some of it is self inflicted. Some of it is also demographic, like the retirement of the boomers, and some geopolitical, like the industrial build out from the shale revolution and the reshoring of industry that is following now. All of those create demand for people and stuff, which increase prices. But! increasing the money supply by massive stimulus is fundamentally inflationary.

Hyper inflation is bad because it makes contracting difficult
which upsets the supply chain resulting in more inflation.
But a moderate amount of inflation, like a moderate amount
of unemployment, is actually good for the economy.
I do think we have been well beyond moderate inflation
and that the Biden Admin's energy policies bear blame.
Giving away vast amounts of taxpayer money has not
been limited to just the Covid response, though that was big.

Quote:

---

But! increasing the money supply by massive stimulus is fundamentally inflationary.

---

Random musings alert! This is what makes me cynical and pessimistic about our economic system. Capitalism and the US more specifically has been amazing at creating wealth. Our system has created more wealth than any other in history, and it's not even close. However, all of that wealth is very concentrated. The rich are much richer than they have ever been compared to the general public.

That seems like a big problem, but I'm beginning to think that is the only way capitalism works. If you start sharing the wealth created more evenly, then you start to see crazy amounts of inflation. For instance, if your economy generates a trillion dollars and that money is put into long term investments by rich people, then the liquid money supply doesn't change much. Wealth is created, some people get very rich on paper, and inflation doesn't move much. However, if you create a trillion dollars and give an equal share to a million people, then every single person is going to spend a million dollars all at once. Inflation will go through the roof, and that money will become worthless. It seems to me the only way to generate large amounts of wealth and keep inflation down is to concentrate that wealth in as few hands as possible. Which is great for the ones with the wealth, but it seems like a bad deal for everyone else.

Running with that thought, it seems that most if not all civilizations are only stable when land, wealth, power, etc are all very concentrated. When someone outside the upper class gets enough of these things, you tend to see instability. See France 1790 or Russia 1917. A powerful middle class is a historically destabilizing influence. It's a sad commentary on humanity if true and if you believe in the notion of fairness and equality, but I can't get around the apparent historical trend.

Quote:

---

We got inflation from stimulus because we diluted the value of money.

---

This sounds like a tautology to me.

If you give a billionaire a million dollars, that money will get invested or maybe spent on a very limited exclusive good like a Bentley. Neither of those are going to move the needle on the consumer price index. However, you give a thousand dollars to a thousand poor people, that money will be spent on food, clothes, phones, rent, down payments on vehicles, and the prices for all those things will increase. Poor people need the money and will spend it right now. Since more people are spending money, the price of those goods will increase. Since poor people will mostly be buying essentials, the price of essentials will increase which is where inflation hurts the most. That's the way I see it anyway

It's not a tautology. Inflation is a relative measure of value of currency over time benchmarked into something or other. By definition if you add more money, the relative value versus everything (all thing being equal) goes down.

Youre missing that money has velocity. That rich guy bought a Bentley, and Bentley gave some of that money to their vendors and workers and shareholders, who gave it to their workers and bought stuff at grocery stores and fixed their cars and bought ice cream and clothes and went to restaurants or amusement parts and so on and so on.

direct stimulus benefits the first person who gets the money the most because their purchasing power is increased relative to everyone else's but prices remain the same. Each time the new dollar changes hands, the next person has less and less benefit as prices reflect the new demand. The hypothetical last person actually loses money because they have been paying higher prices all along without the benefit of the new money. This is why subsidizing industries actually costs everyone, the principle is the same.

Sure, you may say a poor person has a different propensity to spend, but even if the rich guy doesn't spend it, the capital *exists*. So unless he buries it as cash it is influencing the money supply. If he puts it into the market in any form at all - eg into a bank for loaning or available for capital investment - it changes the balance between the supply of capital and the demand for it.

Where I live

Medium Fries = $4.39 (not $2.89 nor $4.19)
McChicken = $3.49 (not $1.99 nor $3.89)
Big Mac = $6.49 (not $4.99 nor $7.49)
10 McNuggets = $6.59 (not $4.99 nor $7.58)
Cheeseburger = $3.19 (not $1.59 nor $3.15)

But the high schoolers are making $20/hr

The point about the people building the Bentley is a good one. I guess my thought would be that there is a layer between the person getting the money and buying common goods and services. Same with someone putting the money in the bank or into the stock market. That money isn't liquid, so it has less effect on the indicators we track for inflation. Along those same lines, that's why the S&P 500 isn't included in the inflation calculation. It can average 10% per year gain for 50 years and yet it doesn't drive anywhere near that level of inflation.

Absolutely the S&P is an indicator of inflation, though. Inflation calculation is just a benchmark, it's all relative.

Money in the bank is liquid - for the bank! It enables loans, and lowers the cost of capital for borrowers. Money in stocks is liquid - for the company! It is capital, equity for cash, and functions exactly like a loan with an expected return, either in equity value increase or a dividend, which are really the same thing related by net present value and interest rates.

Part of what we're experiencing now is a capital crunch caused by baby boomers removing their capital from the markets en masse. Less capital means higher borrowing costs, more people competing for fewer dollars - higher interest rates.

Pro Sandy said:

---

Where I live

Medium Fries = $4.39 (not $2.89 nor $4.19)
McChicken = $3.49 (not $1.99 nor $3.89)
Big Mac = $6.49 (not $4.99 nor $7.49)
10 McNuggets = $6.59 (not $4.99 nor $7.58)
Cheeseburger = $3.19 (not $1.59 nor $3.15)

But the high schoolers are making $20/hr

---

About 30% of fast food workers are teens. That kind of salary can help a lot people move from truly dire poverty.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

Where I live

Medium Fries = $4.39 (not $2.89 nor $4.19)
McChicken = $3.49 (not $1.99 nor $3.89)
Big Mac = $6.49 (not $4.99 nor $7.49)
10 McNuggets = $6.59 (not $4.99 nor $7.58)
Cheeseburger = $3.19 (not $1.59 nor $3.15)

But the high schoolers are making $20/hr

---

About 30% of fast food workers are teens. That kind of salary can help a lot people move from truly dire poverty.

---

Not surprising, many fast food restaurants are finding traffic is decreasing. Labor costs force higher prices which reduces spending.

Look at McDonald's replacing workers with kiosks or overseas folks.

The free market doesn't support $20/hr minimum wage for fast food.

Macarthur said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

If you guys are really arguing that inflation hasn't really been all that bad over the last 4 years, I have nothing else to say.

---

Couple of things:


Yes, inflation has been an issue, but US businesses have recorded record profits quarter after quarter since the pandemic. There has to be a conversation about some level of price gouging going on.

Inflation has been better in the US than many other parts of the world.

https://www.investopedia.com/inflation-rates-us-and-the-world-7369986

---

I don't believe its price gouging but a consequence of locking everything down during Covid…Goods stopped being produced so when the lockdowns were lifted everyone went crazy buying "things" and there was no to little inventory to replace what was bought…manufacturers are playing catch up now…goes back to supply and demand…The lockdowns were a disaster for businesses, schools, children, families….everything and everybody..

BusterAg said:

---

I'll just leave this right here.

Fast food price increases since Joe Biden came into office. It isn’t your imagination, fast food is insanely more expensive than it used to be. This is Bidenomics. pic.twitter.com/m2ZFDOAgX4

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 21, 2024

---

Maybe those are the prices at the airport in Guam?

No doubt there are multiple contributing factors, but I've read numerous articles that claim that the issues w supply chains, transportation, etc from the pandemic are not really a factor anymore.

Zobel said:

---

We didn't get inflation from the stimulus because it went to poor people. We got inflation from stimulus because we diluted the value of money.

---

In my opinion, we got inflation from the stimulus because it was given away to people that were not working, as opposed to being invested in capital projects that would have helped the economy. But, I guess I am just restating what you said.

If all of that stimulus money had gone towards investment in projects that made the economy more efficient, it would not have been nearly so inflationary. The money would have gone into the economy, and then into the "balance sheets" of the capital projects that were invested in.

But, it wasn't. It was a complete give-away.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

We got inflation from stimulus because we diluted the value of money.

---

This sounds like a tautology to me.

If you give a billionaire a million dollars, that money will get invested or maybe spent on a very limited exclusive good like a Bentley. Neither of those are going to move the needle on the consumer price index. However, you give a thousand dollars to a thousand poor people, that money will be spent on food, clothes, phones, rent, down payments on vehicles, and the prices for all those things will increase. Poor people need the money and will spend it right now. Since more people are spending money, the price of those goods will increase. Since poor people will mostly be buying essentials, the price of essentials will increase which is where inflation hurts the most. That's the way I see it anyway

---

The difference is that the poor people are receiving the money without creating any extra wealth in exchange for the money they received.

If the poor people would have worked extra hours, or hours that they would have worked but-for receiving the money, then it would not have been so inflationary.

But, that's not what happened.

Poor people got enough money that they cashed government checks and stayed home. More money, less output means inflation.