Five minutes of hate news

I think that the guy who wrote this load of crap should be forced to live only with his salary in a country where inflation hits 84%... per month, and see if he likes his 'bigger' salary.

I know the Brazilians who did so didn't like it.
I hear Venuzeula is nice this time of year.
 
I wonder if the lady who wrote that article has considered that inflation destroys a worker's effective savings. If you saved 100 dollars from the last year, and now each dollar is only worth half of what it used to, then you only really saved 50 dollars.

The 'key points' of the article were:
  • As inflation takes hold, wages may increase, too.
  • The question is, will it be enough to outpace the rise in prices.
But that isn't the only question that needs to be asked.
 
I wonder if the lady who wrote that article has considered that inflation destroys a worker's effective savings. If you saved 100 dollars from the last year, and now each dollar is only worth half of what it used to, then you only really saved 50 dollars.

The 'key points' of the article were:
  • As inflation takes hold, wages may increase, too.
  • The question is, will it be enough to outpace the rise in prices.
But that isn't the only question that needs to be asked.

Inflation "winners" are those in debt and non-monetary asset holders. People holding cash and those in work are the traditional losers in the inflation game as wages don't keep pace with inflation and savings are eroded.
 
Inflation "winners" are those in debt and non-monetary asset holders. People holding cash and those in work are the traditional losers in the inflation game as wages don't keep pace with inflation and savings are eroded.
No, generally banks lose when inflation bumps up and people with mortgages win. In fact, this is what the famous "Cross of Gold" speech was about: farmers and those in debt (almost everyone) wanted inflation to deal with the current problem.

The issue is constant inflation. Inflation (or deflation, or stagnation) at a constant rate doesn't hurt banks at all, but it does hit workers.
 
Chicago Public Schools will now make sure students grades 5 and up will have access to essential supplies like condoms. Yes, CONDOMS. For 5th graders!

they're giving condoms to 10 year olds now, just.. really pushing sex on children now, in addition to CRT bullshittery.
I was attending a Chicago Public High School as a freshman when I was given in front of the school a flyer with a condom stapled to it. It was innocuous enough until I noticed that the condoms were stapled to the flyers through the condoms. Now, this was the late 80's so the flyer was concerned with STDs, but really, through the condom. At least I was aware enough even at that young age what the issue was with that and didn't fall prey to this mistake/trap but it struck me just how stupid/evil (really boils down to intent) these folks can be.
 
See, here I disagree. Using fiat money is agreeing implicitly to the terms of service it is offered at, which in the case of the dollar, includes the Fed being able to decide to inflate it or deflate it. For example, Bitcoin also has new coins enter the market. These are part of the contract. But it isn't considered embezzlement even though the introduction of new coins devalues the old ones, because it is issued as per rule.

In addition, creating more of something is not aggression. Suddenly finding a massive gold mine, buying the land, then mining it to sell gold will reduce the value of gold, but it isn't embezzlement either.

What the king did in that example though was theft. He stole property from those that held it. That's fundamentally different from making new stuff. That's wrong.

Now whether inflation is good is another question entirely from whether it is morally wrong or not.
 
Chicago Public Schools will now make sure students grades 5 and up will have access to essential supplies like condoms. Yes, CONDOMS. For 5th graders!

they're giving condoms to 10 year olds now, just.. really pushing sex on children now, in addition to CRT bullshittery.
smh See, teens I can understand: The age of consent is 16 in the UK, so we have a different cultural view than Americans (to the point where I wonder if a lot of Americans have cultural brain damage regarding this) when it comes to teens and teens having sex/relationships. Even then, however, it's a pretty sure-fire thing that anyone 15 and up, or even 14 in some cases, could already be sexually active with one another regardless of their country.

But these aren't teens: They're 10 year old kids, for fuck's sake!

From personal experience? Yeah, I first had signs of puberty at 10'ish (first boner freaked me the fuck out, I'll be frank -- such a "memorable" experience! To cap it off, we had sex education when were all 15 -- waaaaay too late for us all, and we all knew about shit for years before anyway by that point), which is a lot earlier than most boys, and yes, girls entering puberty are getting younger and younger (something to do with a healthier diet or a Western diet influencing things? I remember someone posting an article about this on SB years back, in a thread about that Chinese 10 year old who had the body of a 20-something year old woman due to some fucked up genetics), but I was freaking too much the fuck out about the changes going on to even think about sex.

I expect a lot of kids, male or female, would be too busy having a meltdown to think like how teens would think, if that makes sense.
 
If this starts threatening the banks they will just work in a revalorization clause.
They didn't in the 80s, with even bigger inflation.



This would probably have more of an impact if there weren't convicted sex offenders in the choir.

In fairness, LGBTs like to joke about stuff that the far right imagines that we do, like calling a normal gay association meeting "the gay agenda", or other such shit. Given that almost no gays believe in conversion therapy (which psychologists also have proof doesn't work for orientation), this is likely a joke badly done by creeps (the sex offenders), which goes over badly for obvious reasons (see: creepy sex offenders).
 
They didn't in the 80s, with even bigger inflation.


In fairness, LGBTs like to joke about stuff that the far right imagines that we do, like calling a normal gay association meeting "the gay agenda", or other such shit. Given that almost no gays believe in conversion therapy (which psychologists also have proof doesn't work for orientation), this is likely a joke badly done by creeps (the sex offenders), which goes over badly for obvious reasons (see: creepy sex offenders).
I perceived it as a joke but not really a joke.

As in, the song was written as a joke, but the writers are joking about it because they really believe it.

This was before I heard about the sex offender thing. If the sex offender thing turns out true, then I have no doubt my interpretation was correct.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top