Quote from: Hell-raiser on September 18, 2018, 10:24:29 AM

Quote from: ulhaq on September 18, 2018, 09:31:48 AM

Quote from: Hell-raiser on September 06, 2018, 08:11:24 PM

Quote from: ulhaq on September 06, 2018, 06:50:50 PM

The references were for your benefit. I am extensively read in economics and I studied it in school. I chose those 3 references to address the 3 specific points that you made. What is the source of your knowledge, your own mind? If you have references for any of those points (or even discussions on this forum which you mentioned in passing), I would take a look at them.

Your references are irrelevant as well as your being "extensively read in economics and I studied it in school". If you can't explain things how you understand them, how can you know that you truly understand what someone else is saying or writing, Nobel prize winners included? This is not a pissing contest, anyway. If you can prove your point, go for it. I gave you an example from real life, and anyone who is actually versed in economics, who understands how deflation and inflation work on the level of separate companies and households, that is at the lowest possible level, knows that deflation is not inflation mirrored. Why should I care about your Nobel prize winners if you can't even answer a very simple question, which reveals your true knowledge and understanding of the matter (or rather lack thereof)?

Um, economics is not simple. Why would I take several pages to explain something when it has already been explained by others at length? I am not going to take the time and the references are not irrelevant. If you are not willing to look them up, then that's your choice. Your "example in real life" - I think you are referring to a claim you made that producers' profits are dependent on inflation? That is a claim without any given basis, not an example.

If you can't explain something in simple terms and a few sentences, you don't understand it yourself as good as you think you do, end of story. What I mentioned is not my claim, it is a textbook example which shows that you don't really understand anything from the ground up. Economics starts with particular individuals, households, and separate businesses, but of course, that doesn't interest you. Now imagine how it feels when you refer me to the works of Nobel prize winners while I refer you to a textbook (why deflation is not inflation negated), and you don't even have a clue what I'm talking about. Just in case, I can explain it in a couple of sentences.

You are acting like someone who read a highly abstract book or two without having any idea or understanding how things work at the lowest level. But I can offer you some comfort as you are definitely not alone in this guileless effort.

I love your tone. I have read and have multiple textbooks of economics. You can assume whatever you want, but you give the impression that you are not familiar with the work of Nobel prize winners? You did not refer me to any textbook, and you haven't explained anything in a few sentences in any of your posts in this thread. If there are some explanation you've given elsewhere, you can give the links. I said that deflation is the opposite of inflation, which is true. I'm not sure how anyone can dispute that, it's basic economics. Maybe there are some misunderstandings going on. I did discuss the possible effects of the use of a deflationary currency like bitcoin in the economy instead of fiat. But you made erroneous statements regarding inflation/deflation, and also claimed that bitcoin is inflationary, which it is not. So forgive me if it seemed that you do not understand economics.