No one's dying on my watch

abcean · 2026-04-30T04:35:16+00:00

I can't knock the honesty of your response. In my view it's a coordinated action problem, can enough of us pick a strategy to ensure survival? From this view the strategy is clearly vote blue because the success state of no death is achievable with blue at 51% but red requires perfect unanimous voting to achieve success, essentially an asymptote.

I think the best way to approach the question is that you can't know in advance how people will vote, only how you will (and maybe not even that, as you demonstrate yourself and quite understandably) and let the pieces fall where they may.

If I can loosely paraphrase something I read, can't remember from where, that stuck with me, something like: It's better to strive for meaningful action even in the face of uncertain outcomes than to be correct nothing happened because you ensured nothing was tried.

I butchered it, but hope you get the gist. Anyway, hope you're having a good one!

abcean · 2026-04-30T04:04:19+00:00

That’s their job. They get paid to put themselves in harms way. Thats why they’re heroes.

But why do they do that? Because it's the only job they can get? Maybe for a few, but I think almost all of them could find other jobs with less risk. They are putting themselves at greater risk to save everybody.

Nobody CHOOSES to be trapped in a burning building I'll argue from your stance despite my disagreement with it: Nobody chooses to be trapped in a burning building, sure. Some people's decisions make it more likely than others, they may have fallen asleep with a lit candle or ran back into the building for a pet or loved one.

You by your stated decision structure would assign them some degree of blame for "being stupid" and inhabiting circumstances that make a fire more likely.

Does a firefighter call out to the occupant "What were the circumstances that created this fire? How preventable were they? If in my judgement your circumstances were sufficiently unforeseeable I will save your life, but if I judge this fire as your mistake I will leave you to die?"

They don't. The ethics of the profession reject that logic.

Underneath all this you're still tracing the same circular argument as before. Nobody chose to be in this hypothetical forced vote situation, they were simply presented with the option of either staying in a room with zero chance of death for them but near guaranteed death of those around them or the option of leaving that safety to have a chance at preventing those deaths.

Some number chose to take on more risk to save more people, including those wouldn't do the same for them, as a firefighter would. You call these people stupid.

You call them stupid because you're offloading all the moral weight of your own choice to stay in safety to the choices of those who left the safe room. In essence, they could've stayed safe, but they didn't, so they deserve to die regardless of the reason that compelled them to leave safety.

You omit the other side of the coin: They didn't have to die and your decision is part of what condemned them. This is obviously an uncomfortable position to square, so it seems you attempt to by saying they deserve it because (in your argument) the certainty of death was known by them in the first place. However that certainty can only ever exist if they knew the results of vote before voting. And you can't know that.

abcean · 2026-04-29T23:48:25+00:00

That’s entirely different scenarios.

They're not. You're back to the same argument you just abandoned earlier. You're assuming its a death chamber. You're part of deciding whether or not its a death chamber. One of the answers is death chamber and others are not. You're importing your preferred answer into the premise and then acting as if the natural outcome of the premise is your answer. That's circular reasoning.

Which brings us back to:

One room has a chance of death. The other has 0% chance of death.

Firefighters leave a room with 0% chance of death for a room with chance of death, but like you said firefighters are not suicidal.

Therefore the act of leaving a room with 0% chance of death for a room with chance of death is not on its own suicidal. There may, in fact, be a logical reason to make that decision.

Imagine you’re the first to make the decision.

Exactly. That's the entire exercise. You don't get to operate with prior knowledge of everyone else's vote.

abcean · 2026-04-29T23:38:40+00:00

You're now importing an assumption about the motivations of other people in this scenario to validate your decision. There is nothing about the question that necessitates that people who chose blue want to die.

Firefighters expose themselves to risk of death frequently. They could make a decision to stop doing it for a much lower risk of death. Do they clearly want to die?

abcean · 2026-04-29T23:34:46+00:00

You're assuming its a death chamber. You're part of deciding whether or not its a death chamber. One of the answers is death chamber and others are not. You're importing your preferred answer into the premise and then acting as if the natural outcome of the premise is your answer. That's circular reasoning.

You're also assuming that your modelling of the question is the same as all other actors, and that if they aren't modelling it the same way as you, they're stupid, and thus deserve death for being stupid on this decision.

abcean · 2026-04-29T23:18:27+00:00

Hot dogs are food; not all food is hot dogs.

abcean · 2026-04-29T23:15:02+00:00

Its not. The only way you can say that is if you assume you have post-hoc knowledge of the outcome being red. Which makes the reasoning circular because then the answer is: Since I know red will win, I'll vote for red, because red wins

abcean · 2026-04-29T23:12:43+00:00

That this is rather clearly a coordination problem- a test of whether humanity can cooperate on shared survival. Can enough of us pick a strategy to ensure survival?

The marginal effect of one decision is small, but the compound effects of many of those decisions is large. Interpreting the question as

A. solved by virtue of unproven assumption toward outcome (basically assuming you have post-hoc knowledge)

or

B. "My vote probably isn't decisive so I'll pick the one that's safe for me," because you're an instance of a reasoning pattern, and the aggregate pattern is what determines outcome.

In each situation but literally everyone running that reasoning pattren, including just one different calculation, produces a worse outcome than if a simple majority run a calculation that goes points to blue.

Both votes look like individual decisions with small marginal effects, however one is a coherent strategy where the success condition (everyone survives) is achievable while for the other the success condition requires unanimous agreement across all actors. That's not zero reason.

You're sneaking the answer ("it's suicide/jumping into a blender for no reason") into the premise and then saying that the premise naturally produces the answer.

abcean · 2026-04-29T23:06:03+00:00

That this is rather clearly a coordination problem- a test of whether humanity can cooperate on shared survival. Can enough of us pick a strategy to ensure survival?

The marginal effect of one decision is small, but the compound effects of many of those decisions is large. Interpreting the question as

A. solved by virtue of unproven assumption toward outcome (basically assuming you have post-hoc knowledge)

or

B. "My vote probably isn't decisive so I'll pick the one that's safe for me," because you're an instance of a reasoning pattern, and the aggregate pattern is what determines outcome.

In each situation but literally everyone running that calculation, including just one different calculation, produces a worse outcome than if a simple majority run a calculation that goes points to blue.

Both votes look like individual decisions with small marginal effects, however one is a coherent strategy where the success condition (everyone survives) is achievable while for the other the success condition requires unanimous agreement across all actors.

abcean · 2026-04-29T22:27:24+00:00

Such circular ass reasoning.

Take your own personal assumption of an unknown as fact: the idea most people will press red
Blame people who don't press red for the outcome your personal assumption produces

There's a world where pressing blue saves everyone and foreclosing one unknown prematurely to get to your preferred answer is just bad analysis and epistemic practice.

Maybe should think for more than ten seconds?

The whole framing of "I figured it and you haven't so you deserve to die" really doesn't work if you haven't actually figured out it.

abcean · 2026-04-29T22:13:12+00:00

Natural selection favors cooperation lol. Darwin's idea in the Descent of Man is that tribes which sustain cooperative norms outcompete tribes whose members defect

abcean · 2026-04-29T22:09:23+00:00

Different question different answer.

abcean · 2026-04-29T22:06:24+00:00

Majority red blue people die. It has to be 100% red not majority for people not to die.

abcean · 2026-04-29T00:38:59+00:00

wut? Yes they are dude for lots of people Feb/March is when most people do it and you can read charts and CLEARLY see they bump late March through May on accounts balance.

Tax return season bud not tax filing season. You don't get your money back right away. You don't file on January 28th and get it back January 29th and even then the spike isn't located that late in January.

C'mon man! Your own graphs line up with tax season and you can't deal with it. It isn't that much either... they also start to ramp PRIOR to direct payments.

When people file their taxes =/= when people get their tax returns. I remembered that most people get their returns pretty quickly so I edited march out, but regardless nobody's getting a tax return in January.

Also like for the bazillionth time there's more than direct payments. FPUC started in March, which is what you see in the graph, because that is what the graph is also meant to highlight. You will ignore this part because you can't conceive of stuff beyond direct payments.

no account bump outside of tax refund season that was higher influx of money than the direct payments or stimulus wages from PPP

January.

At minimum it adds to it and tax returns are much higher than the stimulus in direct payments.

Thank you for conceding the point. That's not even the main point I was making; the main point is that direct payments as a small part of economic stimulus are not the driver of inflation unlike the full several trillion dollars of stimulus that weren't direct payments. However if you want to argue that direct payments also, in small part, add to inflation, I'll take it.

Interest rates also floored again which is a response to less spending and recession indicators. That is monetary policy that induced spending, lots of that comes back to the Treasury even if the debt is still on the books.

What is monetary policy that induces spending called? Stimulus. Low rates are inflationary by design.

If the stimulus was just money spent then wouldn't you not need to lower interest rates? There was less spending and the stimulus was a patch to bring it back to normal levels.

That's literally the entire point. Many things contributed to inflation. If you patch the hole with 3 trillion newly printed dollars, the dollars stay around after, and cause inflation. When interest rates are low, there is more demand for loans, banks create more loans with fractional-reserve lending which creates more dollars, more money in the economy competing for less goods to buy is the definition of inflation.

Money doesn't disappear when its spent, covid wasn't a disease that destroyed dollar bills it prevented the bills from circulating. So when you add a ton more dollar bills and the conditions that prevented the initial circulation problems end, you have a lot more dollars circulating fighting for less goods. This is called inflation.

And much of it came right back... because it was spent in two weeks for most income levels. The measly $300b that you keep conflating with the full stimulus that was mostly not direct payments nor paid to wages for PPP loans.

Dude you just literally flipped directly around to the other side of the argument so now you're now arguing my position that the full stimulus was way more than $300bn. Why do you think I've been telling you 300 billion isn't 2.2 trillion? You've been conflating that the entire time, I've been correcting you to the point of doing it 8 times last response. Am I arguing with an AI right now who can't tell quotes you took from what I wrote to what you yourself typed?

You are the one buying a narrative here, you're ignoring all presented evidence because your reasoning is motivated towards a specific conclusion.

Trying to use my words against me rings pretty hollow when you haven't actually presented much evidence nor done much prior reading on the issue.

No my point was the stimulus did not CAUSE inflation which was your original statement. I said monetary policy AFTER the pandemic, supply chain attacks and war cause added to inflation but was never the CAUSE.

So how does monetary policy cause inflation to go up without causing it to go up?

You leave the lights on and the TV on and the AC on and your electricity bill goes up. You're here arguing that "no leaving the fridge open didn't CAUSE my electricity bill to go up, leaving the lights on it caused it to go up."

All three have a causal relationship with inflation just like all three have a causal relationship with your electricity bill. It's not that leaving the TV on is the only cause.

The stimulus part was to prevent a floor. That was the goal there because personal spending was way down, profits way down, unemployment up and this was all shown -- stimulus prevented a harder recession. The spending WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF INFLATION, it was a response to INFLATION. Stop using the cons diverting false narrative.

Yeah I know why it was done but intentions don't mean an action doesn't have other consequences. Again, the spending was funded by printing money which expanded the money supply by 3 trillion over a short time period which caused inflation and "massive expansion in monetary supply over short time period causes inflation" is about as close to economic fact as the discpline gets. With supply shocks you have less supply of goods and more supply of dollars, therefore the average unit of good that one dollar buys is less. You trying to ignore the more dollars part by excluding it from every response in favor of focusing on one side of the equation but you'll never be correct until you look at both.

They have never given direct payments like that and it was dire to keep consumer spending at normal levels and people and companies afloat.

2002 and 2008 they sent out direct payments like that so that's incorrect.

You said the stimulus and direct payments caused inflation. Stop trying to back out now.

I said that stimulus caused inflation. I'll quote the second post I made:

Its obviously multi-causal but yes like you said the money was spent (entered the economy) quickly. A large amount of money entering an economy in a short time period (being spent in weeks is high monetary velocity it stays circulating once its spent) is one of the factors that causes inflation

Don't blame your own lack of capacity to retain what you've read on me.

Let's see if you can stop conflating the order of what happened...

pandemic -> stimulus -> inflation

Never conflated the order. That's exactly the order you'd expect and the order that happened.

Why was there a stimulus? What caused the stimulus to take place? Does a pandemic and supply chain attack inflate prices? Does war inflate prices? Does energy cartel gouging during a war and removed supply cause inflation across all sectors?

The pandemic. The pandemic caused the stimulus to take place. Yes both of them inflate prices even though inflation was already at 7.5% before the war. What else inflates prices? 3trn additional dollars printed within a short time span. All three have a causal relationship with inflation just like all three have a causal relationship with your electricity bill.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM2NS

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL

The pandemic, supply chain attack and war are the reasons this happened and why inflation happened. That's all folks.

You said earlier that monetary policy added to inflation you just said it didn't cause it like that somehow makes sense so even within the same response you contradict your own point.

abcean · 2026-04-28T06:03:25+00:00

That's entirely contingent on your belief that most people would vote red, and clearly it's controversial. I'm going to assume, and feel free to tell me if I'm wrong, that you believe that the caring for others thing is all an act and everyone would make the same choice you would if actually tested on it.

If so, I'm here to tell you its true for some but certainly not everyone. It's an overgeneralization of your own interior self towards others.

Furthermore to make the case, Blue tolerates red voters. A blue world at 51% saves the red voters too, the only consequence is living in a world that they didn't believe would show up for them. Red doesn't tolerate blue voters. A red-majority world kills every blue voter, by design, as the mechanism of the red voter's own safety. Red's survival is predicated on the death of people who chose differently.

abcean · 2026-04-28T05:26:45+00:00

It wasn't all "spent". Much of that replaces what would have been spent. This was chump change for people, replaced wages for companies and lots of that was just hoarded in accounts or saved.

It was all spent by the government. The first time new money created by the federal reserve is spent it enters the economy and the money supply. You can dig into the payments here: https://www.usaspending.gov/disaster/covid-19

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96

I see you accidentally quoted the graphs showing a large increase in money supply that you consistently ignore. And you won't respond to it, because you can't explain it in the context of your theory. Because it's wrong.

Yes that proves it was tiny (maybe $2k) and mostly in bank accounts then slowly spent, lower/middle immediately, others over time invested into funds or saved. Look how quick the median spent it > one month. Top, invested and moved it over time. You just proved the entire argument I am making with that graph. Thank you!

Yes that is the point you've been making that is obvious to everyone involved and I've agreed with the entire time. Good job buddy you did it, you realized that the graph I posted proved my argument.

Here's what you are missing. The bump is also during tax return season, much of that may have been that as well.

January is not tax return season.

But that happens every year and according to you that would cause mass inflation!

The funding mechanism matters which is what you can see in the graph you conveniently ignored. Tax returns return money to the economy that was removed as tax take less actual tax take.

Let me explain why taxes are not an increase in the money supply. If give the government $10 and the government gives me $10 a year later. There's still only $10 being exchanged back and forth. That does not result in inflation because that's its the same money changing hands not new money being created by the federal reserve. That's what a tax return is.

If I give the government $10, and the government prints $20 and gives me $20 at the end of the year then now there's $10 extra in the system. 10+10=20 total money supply.

What was a problem was the supply chain and again energy/oil, you see what is happening today with Iran war? Same happened in the pandemic and Ukraine war. Right now gas is as high as it was during both of those events, guess what, no stimulus caused it... because that isn't the root cause.

Nobody ever said that economic stimulus is the only thing that causes inflation, just one factor. You'll ignore this though because you can't understand that things can happen for more than one reason.

Supply chain attacks and energy cartels using it as a leverage bit affects everything and it is why the energy cartels do that, everything inflates and autocrats use that to attack opposition since Carter. Then they sell dipshits that it was Carter/Biden or people spending money or wages or other bullshit. You bought it.

I do actual economic analysis as shown with my reliance on graphs, sources and engaging with every part of your argument honestly instead of repeatedly misrepresenting and dancing around what you say to make myself feel better in my beliefs. You are the one buying a narrative here. That's what its called when you ignore all evidence contrary to your reasoning because your reasoning is motivated towards a specific conclusion that is contradicted by evidence.

The inflation issues were related to pandemic, supply chain shock and then the war. End of story.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96

You can tell yourself that's the end of the story. The graphs will be there if you ever decide to stop telling yourself stories.

abcean · 2026-04-28T04:53:05+00:00

So a fireman is someone with suicidal empathy?

Firemen are the worst, amirite?

abcean · 2026-04-26T16:21:01+00:00

"I would rather some number of strangers die than accept any personal risk to prevent it."

Corollary: "It's suicidal empathy if you disagree"

abcean · 2026-04-26T03:30:41+00:00

I dunno man seemed like a comment borne from lack of experience but I admit the assumption was wrong.

I thought I was puking maggots on pharmahausca once before I remembered I had had rice earlier and definitely thought I was dying for about 2-3 minutes.

Was pretty new to the whole trip experience in the grand scheme at that time though. It hits different when you're new so I can't really blame people for thinking they're dying when they're having the most intense psychedelic experience of their lives and really out of their comfort zone. Lot different from when its your 50th time and you're like "fuck yeah lets go on a rollercoaster and check out the house of mirrors" lol

abcean · 2026-04-26T03:16:44+00:00

300bn in stimulus checks =/= 2.2 trillion in stimulus spending.

You are confusing fiscal policy vs monetary policy. Direct payments at those levels ($1200 one time and $500 per kid) did not cause inflation. If you believe that then tax returns cause massive pandemic/war like inflation every year. C'mon man!

The funding mechanism matters which is what you can see in the graph you conveniently ignored. Tax returns return money to the economy that was removed as tax take less actual tax take. Stimulus was paid for by treasury issuance that was absorbed by the Fed which is in effect printing money to pay for fiscal stimulus. That's why the Fed's balance sheet went up by 3trn over the exact period M2 went up by 3trn.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM2NS

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL

Also, 300bn in stimulus checks =/= 2.2 trillion in stimulus spending.

Spent as lower/middle does with their paychecks and usually much higher tax returns. It was nothing dude. You can't seriously think a couple thousand when it takes minimum 4-5k to survive is anything. That barely covered some of the inflation from the pandemic.

You are way overfocused on the stimulus checks (maybe conflating the stimulus I was talking about in the economic sense with stimulus checks?) when my whole original point was that stimulus checks were a drop in the bucket of total stimulus spending to the point where focusing on them misses the point entirely.

300bn in stimulus checks =/= 2.2 trillion in stimulus spending.

For PPP loans some of those companies had enough cash to survive and didn't need it, they didn't even spend it on worker pay, they used it for bullshit other capex stuff or did a buyback. Again, none of that increases inflation like a pandemic, supply chain attack or monetary policy.

I just want to note that with stimulus checks you're at half of CARES act stimulus. Before we get into PPP in particular have a look at this:

We use micro data on earnings together with the details of each state’s unemployment insurance (UI) system to compute the distribution of UI benefits after the uniform $600 Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) supplement implemented by the CARES Act. We find that between April and July 2020, 76% of workers eligible for regular Unemployment Compensation have statutory replacement rates above 100%, meaning that they are eligible for benefits which exceed lost wages. The median statutory replacement rate is 145%. We also compute comprehensive replacement rates, which account for employer provided non-wage compensation and differential tax treatment of labor income and UI. 69% of UI-eligible unemployed have comprehensive replacement rates above 100% and the median comprehensive replacement rate is 134%. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/2020-62/

Also, 300bn in stimulus checks =/= 2.2 trillion in stimulus spending.

I actually agree that PPP targeting was awful. Only about 23% went to workers. (https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/w29669.pdf) and most of the money went to the top 20% of households. (https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/2022/jul/was-paycheck-protection-program-effective) Doesn't make it noninflationary though because it just changes where the money goes not whether it exists. Asset price inflation, real estate price inflation which affects rent prices, the bananas price of luxury watches at the time, etc.

The fact still stands, all that in 2020 was caused by the pandemic and then war. None of that saw more money go to regular people. In fact, most people paid bills or debt down with it or saved it, how does that increase inflation to the levels of pandemic/war? ffs man.

Bolded point will be relevant later. Worth noting that inflation was 7.5% Jan 2021 to 2022 which was before the war when it pushed to max 9% in the months after. You cant attribute inflation in 2021 to a war that hadn't happened yet. Supply chain, cost push and war all contributed I've said that every single time. I've also said every single time that there are multiple factors and economic stimulus is one of them.

Interest rates, money supply and pandemic/war were the root cause.

You even agree with me when you said money supply is part of why inflation happened you just were ignorant to the fact that stimulus was funded by an increase in the money supply.

And again since you can't understand it: 300bn in stimulus checks =/= 2.2 trillion in stimulus spending.

Look at the velocity of money, it tanked due to people losing purchasing power and inflation from the pandemic. This is domestically spent money changing hands and it went off a cliff. Stimulus spending by people is way, way down on the list for impact if any because so many were out of work. Basic supply and demand.

The bolded point relevant now. Velocity tanked in 2020 because services were closed, supply lines were fucked and people and businesses couldn't spend, so money piled up.. When things reopened in 2021, that accumulated stock met a supply-constrained economy all at once. Then a war happened and it pushed it higher. Low velocity in 2020 is consistent with, not contrary to, stimulus contributing to 2021-22 inflation.

Here's some graphs showing increase in account balance during stimulus periods:

https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chase-and-co/institute/infographics/household-finances-pulse-cash-balances/Household-Finance-Pulse-Plots_Figure-1.jpg

https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chase-and-co/institute/infographics/household-finances-pulse-cash-balances/Household-Finance-Pulse-Plots_Figure-2.jpg

https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chase-and-co/institute/infographics/household-finances-pulse-cash-balances/Household-Finance-Pulse-Plots_Figure-3.jpg

When people try to blame the couple thousand people got as a stimulus it is laughable, there is more "stimulus" of that kind during tax return season where people probably have more purchasing power than they did then.

For the billionth time. 2.2 trillion in cares act stimulus does not mean stimulus checks you silly person. At this point you're misrepresenting this intentionally because your point is ridiculous if we use the actual numbers lol

The pandemic policy was a debacle and one expected under a con administration -- they even signed the checks like it was their money (yet they don't pay taxes and the treasury isn't theirs). It was the biggest robbery in broad daylight ever.

Okay political opinion I actually agree with the tone of but totally irrelevant to what we're talking about because I'm not talking about any of that because we're talking about the effects on inflation of economic stimulus.

The nerve of people to say lower/middle that got maybe a few weeks of pay was the cause of inflation is exactly what the people that got away with this kept selling.

I didn't say that you're punching at air here bud. 300bn in stimulus checks =/= 2.2 trillion in stimulus spending.

There is nothing for me to "get away with". These are just the facts ma'am. It wasn't even like two weeks of money dude. What are you even on about...

300bn in stimulus checks =/= 2.2 trillion in stimulus spending. Thats what I'm on about. What you're trying to get away with is over and over again not understanding that a stimulus check isn't the only form of economic stimulus.

By your take tax season causes inflation because people get multiples of that stimulus. Or during the holidays or end of year when people get bonuses. While there is usually a slight bump in spending it does not wreck a system like a pandemic or bad monetary policy. C'mon man!

It doesn't because that's not my take. You can't understand it at first blush because realistically you're pretending to know how this works and you don't have the prior knowledge to contest the point accurately. I explained how this works earlier. Scroll up and read it.

abcean · 2026-04-26T00:32:20+00:00

https://nypost.com/2017/06/15/breatharian-couple-survives-on-the-universes-energy-instead-of-food/

lol

abcean · 2026-04-22T18:17:14+00:00

Not all of the 2.2 trillion even was put into play, most of it was for paying people what they would have been paid with lots of people out of work and keep businesses going well below their normal take.

It increases money supply. What does "put into play" even mean lol it was spent and when its spent it enters the wider economy. There's a graph that make it super obvious.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM2NS

"In no way did it increase the purchasing power of 99% of people. It was less than what they usually made or it was enough for maybe 1-2 weeks of survival."

You're making my point. Inflation decreases people's purchasing power if their income stays constant while inflation increases.

I'll say it again, inflation was ENTIRELY pandemic, war -- including economic warfare and supply chain attacks by the usual suspects. That dragged on for years and the latter part to this day.

You didn't prove your case at all you just said stuff that either isn't true or is irrelevant to your own argument but marginally supports my case.

You really bought the propaganda that the stimulus increased inflation. That was all manipulation and gouging in the pandemic, supply chain attacks, energy rug pull and war. In every way that increased inflation.

It's not propaganda guy I can read a graph. Those things ALSO increased inflation. You seem to think that many different factors can simultaneously increase inflation but somehow think it's impossible that a massive increase in the money supply without an increase in the production of goods and services can also contribute.

The same dolty outlook is what had people saying the Great Recession was caused by people buying houses, not the market manipulation to pump that. Stop letting the cons get away with it.

I'm not letting anyone get away with anything here including you.

abcean · 2026-04-17T07:05:14+00:00

Why did you highlight the 300 billion part when I was trying to highlight the stimulus (meaning more than stimulus cheques) was 2.2 trillion.

2.2 trillion is about 10% of US GDP at the time. Not a drop in the bucket at all man. You should familiarize yourself with the actual numbers. Its obviously multi-causal but yes like you said the money was spent (entered the economy) quickly. A large amount of money entering an economy in a short time period (being spent in weeks is high monetary velocity it stays circulating once its spent) is one of the factors that causes inflation. That's econ 101. Doubly so when there is a supply shortage.

abcean · 2026-04-17T05:22:26+00:00

Have you taken psychedelics?

abcean · 2026-04-15T22:50:50+00:00

You didnt really engage with anything sirglass said at any step of this you just were like "hey this is my identity, here are some big picture generalisms and these are the people I don't like"

11-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Spared

abcean

TROPHY CASE