PS

[Dale Eastman]

Abridged since insults don't discuss details of the topic.

Here’s what I’m telling you: I know a lot about banking and central banking.

Are you going to claim banks don't use fractional reserves?

Dale, yes. They do not use “fractional reserves” in the way you think.

Your perception is widely held, and is based on a misunderstanding of many banking terms, and simply, on reading people like Griffin, rather than things like the Federal Reaerve Act.

If you ask, I will tell you, and tell you how to check what I tell you - not by suggesting you read conspiratorial books, but by showing you the laws which govern bankings, the actual policy papers and statements of central banks, and so on.

➽ Here’s what I’m telling you: I know a lot about banking and central banking.

Evidence?

➽ but by showing you the laws which govern bankings, the actual policy papers and statements of central banks, and so on.

If so, you will increase your Cred with me.

Dale, everything I tell you is checkable from authoritative sources.

For example: the claim is that banks use “fractional reserves” - that is, that they can create loans as some multiple of their reserve balances. So, if the Fed gives them more reserves, they can make more loans.

Thats false.

The Federal Reserve Act allows banks to make loans as a multiple of their CAPITAL.

Reserve balances are not “capital”, to banks.

Traditionally, “capital” is a balance sheet “right side” entry which essentially consists of assets minus liabilities, at the most basic level.

For banks, this isn’t true.

“Bank capital” has a specific meaning, which is “those liabilities which we, the Fed, allow you to count as capital”.

The definition of bank capital is generally specified by the Basel Accords, to which the US is not signatory, but which generally comply with.

Each central bank is tasked with enacting the requirements of the current Basel Accord (they are updated from time to time).

The Fed has done that.

Traditionally, capital was divided into three Tiers - starting with “paid in capital” as Tier 1 - that is, the amount of money that bank stockholders actually paid for their stock in the bank), and Tiers 2 and 3, which consisted of different levels of “risk weighted” capital - that is, bank capital holdings (securities) which have no face values, but must be valuated using GAAP standards (such as mark to market).

Since the Great Recession, the Basel III agreement restricted the definition of bank capital to Tier 1 capital, to encourage a more conservative constraint on bank lending practices.

In no case are central bank reserve balances EVER counted as “bank capital”.

In fact, the role of “reserves” is widely misunderstood (we can go through an intuitive explanation of what reserves are for, which make them quite understandable, if you want).

Banks are allowed to lend amounts of money up to a point where bank capital is a certain percentage of that amount - I’m not sure what that is now, but it has been 12% for years.

So, if a bank has $120 million in “bank capital”, as defined by the Fed’s implementation of Basel, it is allowed to make a total of $1 billion in loans.

That has nothing to do with reserves, and nothing to do with deposits (banks don’t lend deposits - and the amount of deposits held by a bank has nothing to do with the amount of money they can lend).

Banks are not “reserve constrained”, they are “capital constrained.”

I just wrote all of that, on the fly.

If you want to fact check it, we can do that.

But when I say I understand banking, I mean I understand it well enough to write something like that on the fly, and have it be accurate.

[Dale Eastman]

➽ If you want to fact check it, we can do that.

I am a pedantic asshole. Especially when it come to claims on the internet.

I don't know what I don't know. This is my reminder to myself to be humble and polite.

I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website. You will only be identified by the letters "PS"

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0

If you decide to post directly to the website, that is doable. Instructions to do so. Click "Reply" instead of "New Topic".

✸ ✸ ✸ ✸ ✸

If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?

Dale, having said that, let’s talk about your question about federal reserve notes.

We’ve strayed from the question of inflation, so I’m not talking about theories of inflation. We can do that, but this comment isn’t that.

In the context of reserve banking, federal reserve notes (cash) are a representation of money. They are a small fraction of the money supply, and it isn’t helpful to think of money as being paper notes.

New money which enters the system never enters the system as paper notes: new money ALWAYS enters the system as bank deposit balances - that is, as accounting entries on a bank’s books.

Here’s how that happens.

We know the federal government deficit spends: that is, it spends money which it does not have.

If you receive a check from the government which is deficit spending, there’s no physical check anymore, but the basic process hasn’t changed.

The Treasury sends your bank a direct deposit notice that they are giving you money - in the amount, say, of $100.

The bank then creates a deposit balance of $100 in your account.

The bank has now increased its liabilities by $100. To balance its books, it either needs to create a $100 asset or reduce some other liability by $100, because its books no longer balance.

The bank then tells the Fed, through the clearinghouse/payments system, that it has created a deposit balance for you because the Treasury told it to - that is, it accepted a deposit of a $100 “government check”.

The Fed then created a $100 reserve balance in your bank’s reserve account. It doesn’t take that money from anywhere, it just creates that reserve balance “with the stroke of a pen”.

The bank’s books now balance, and there is $100 more in the money supply than there was before you deposited your check.

That’s how money is created: the federal government spends money it doesn’t have, which results in banks creating that money in the form of bank deposits, and the Fed batting cleanup by creating reserve balances which enable the bank to make payments on your behalf when you use your debit card.

Let’s say you want cash. You withdraw cash from the bank.

The bank will give you that cash “from their vault”.

“Vault cash” is cash which banks keep on hand for customer convenience. It is not counted in the money supply.

Banks buy pallets of vault cash using their reserve balances. Reserve balances are not counted in the money supply, either.

So when a bank buys a pallet of cash, it is not adding that cash to the money supply, and the reserve balances it pays to buy the cash doesn’t subtract money from the money supply. The books balance.

When you withdraw cash, that cash is added to the money supply, and in exchange, the bank reduces your bank deposit balance, which reduces the money supply.

So the addition of federal reserve notes to the system doesn’t change the money supply, it simply converts bank deposits into cash, both of which are counted in the money supply.

Federal reserve notes, therefore, have nothing to do with inflation.

I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website. You will only be identified by the letters "PS"

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0

Repeating my reminder to myself, "This is my reminder to myself to be humble and polite."

➽ We’ve strayed from the question of inflation, so I’m not talking about theories of inflation. We can do that, but this comment isn’t that.

Your claim is noted. I do not agree.

You addressed my question and DID NOT ANSWER my question:
If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?

Unpacking your following paragraph:

𝟙.➽ In the context of reserve banking, federal reserve notes (cash) are a representation of money.
𝟚.➽ They are a small fraction of the money supply, and
𝟛.➽ it isn’t helpful to think of money as being paper notes.

𝟙. What is "MONEY"?
𝟚. I REJECT this claim. "MONEY" has NOT been defined and agreed to.
𝟛. I don't. "MONEY" has NOT been defined and agreed to.

➽ New money which enters the system never enters the system as paper notes: new money ALWAYS enters the system as bank deposit balances - that is, as accounting entries on a bank’s books.

OBJECTION! "MONEY" has NOT been defined and agreed to.

➽ The Fed then created a $100 reserve balance in your bank’s reserve account. It doesn’t take that money from anywhere, it just creates that reserve balance “with the stroke of a pen”.

Yup, with the stroke of a pen currency (what you are errantly calling "money") comes into existence.



What is the value of this "bill"?

[Dale Eastman]

Fecalbook is mucking up notifications.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0

Fecalbook is mucking up notifications.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0

Fecalbook is mucking up notifications.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0

Fecalbook is mucking up notifications.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0

[Dale Eastman]

You:
I know a lot about banking and central banking.
You:
by showing you the laws which govern bankings, the actual policy papers and statements of central banks, and so on.

Me:
If so, you will increase your Cred with me.
Me:
If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?

I know a lot about banking and central banking.
You:
by showing you the laws which govern bankings, the actual policy papers and statements of central banks, and so on.

Me:
If so, you will increase your Cred with me.
Me:
If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?

Dale, a little off topic, don’t you think?

Why don’t you post an OP on the subject?[

➽ Dale, a little off topic, don’t you think?

➽ Why don’t you post an OP on the subject?

What the fuck do you think this is?

Dale, never saw it. I wasn’t tagged.

You were, but Fecalbook being Fecalbook, So looking at it now, the tag is missing.

[Dale Eastman]

//If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?//

That’s called inflation, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s federal reserve notes or deposit account balances.

Some inflation is a desirable thing, as long as it’s moderate and stable.

There is no such thing as money which will never vary in value.

If money appreciates in value, then it reduces the value of every good and service, and of labor, over time.

So if money appreciated in value, here’s an example of what would happen:

If deflation were 6%, then the value of a dollar would double in ten years.

Let’s say you buy a house for $100,000. In 12 years it would be worth only $50,000.

But your mortgage on the house is for a fixed percentage rate. Let’s say that it takes you a week of labor, now, to pay your mortgage. In 12 years, it would take you two weeks to pay that mortgage every month, because you have to pay the same number of dollars every month, but the value of the dollars has doubled.

The bank is making out like a bandit, and your mortgage payment goes up, in real terms, every month.

With deflation (an appreciating dollar), you have to pay back your loan with dollars that are more valuable than the dollars you borrowed.

With inflation, you are paying your loan back with dollars that are worth less than the dollars you borrowed.

Inflation encourages investment.

Under deflation, hoarding cash is the best investment, which discourages investment in everything else.
This is why deflation is associated with depressions, and inflation is associated with growing economies.

Since we have to choose between inflation and deflation, we choose inflation, for obvious reasons.

Dale, never wait to check that stuff before taking the opportunity to insult people.

[Dale Eastman]

YOU:
➽ Why don’t you post an OP on the subject?
ME:
What the fuck do you think this is?
YOU:
➽ Dale, never saw it. I wasn’t tagged.
ME:
You were, but Fecalbook being Fecalbook, So looking at it now, the tag is missing.
YOU:
➽ Dale, never wait to check that stuff before taking the opportunity to insult people.

⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒

𝟙. Please explain the insult you claim I made.

𝟚. You were tagged in the original thread where our discussion started:
29 March @ 1101;
30 March @ 0919;
30 March @ 1237;
30 March @ 1840.

⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒

⇉ If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?

➽ That’s called inflation,

I know what the decrease in the value Of the "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES" a.k.a. "LEGAL TENDER" is called. My error in not being specific enough with my question. What causes this "INFLATION"?

None of your following 260 words address this topic.

➽ Since we have to choose between inflation and deflation, we choose inflation, for obvious reasons.

Who, specifically, is this "WE"? Who, exactly, are you presuming to speak for? Am I included in this "WE"?
Reminder, I did warn you that I am a pedantic asshole. Especially when it come to claims on the internet.

➽ the value of a dollar

Is this a dollar like what you are referring to?

Dale, not sure what your point is.

We all know what a federal reserve not[e] is.

It’s a US dollar, in cash.

➽ Dale, not sure what your point is.

I will accept the blame for my apparent lack of clarity

➽ We all know what a federal reserve not[e] is.

Who, specifically, is this "WE"? Who, exactly, are you presuming to speak for? Am I included in this "WE"?
Reminder, I did warn you that I am a pedantic asshole. Especially when it come to claims on the internet.

Further comment is held and reserved because I'm re-asking a question you missed:

What is the value of this "bill"?

Dale, the value of that bill is one dollar.

You’re obviously trying to head somewhere, and I’m pretty sure I know where you’re trying to go.

I’ve been to this rodeo 100 times before.

You’re asking the wrong questions.

Here, I’ll offer a conclusionary teaser:

The US can never go bankrupt, never needs to borrow money, and only borrows money as a policy choice in order to manage inflation and interest rates.

The US, with its current monetary system, can never become Greece, or the Weimar Republic, or Zimbabwe.

However, the policies of people like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and others who think like they do, could easily turn us into any of those.

➽ You’re asking the wrong questions.

Your errant opinion is noted.

I ask questions to get answers. Your unwillingness/refusal to answer my questions says a great deal to me regarding your implied expertise in banking.

➽ Dale, the value of that bill is one dollar.

What is the value of "one dollar"?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, what should it be?

Every good, and hour of labor, has some value (which we call utility).

We use money as a medium to arbitrate the differences in the values of those different goods and services.

So the dollar is worth a dollar. It’s a unit of measurement.

Your question is like asking “how long is a foot?” It’s a foot. Twelve inches.

Is it as long as a rock? Depends on the rock. It’s what we use to measure the length of other things.

A dollar is what we use to measure the utility of other things.

There is only one thing which has a price which does not vary: taxes.

The US government issues the dollar, and it has the power to tax dollars.

So a dollar is always of the exact value (utility, actually) to satisfy one dollar of tax obligation.

That’s not a specious answer.

That’s fundamental to understanding how money works.

I often have my wife read over my shoulder as a reality check. Her comment on this discussion was that you are just not "getting it".

I conclude that I have failed to communicate in a manner that you can understand.

ME:
⇉ What is the value of "one dollar"?
YOU:
➽ Dale, what should it be?

Not what it is.
⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒ ⛒
Quoting Voltaire: "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

There are words, phrases, or terms being used in this discussion that have NOT been defined.
Undefined words, phrases, or terms allow equivocation.
Equivocation interferes with communication.

27 March @ 1150 I asked:
⇉ "What is "MONEY"?"

Dale, you’re not being sincere.

You didn’t ask me what money is, or if you did it was on a thread about Ukraine or abortion, or buried in a wall of sarcasm surrounded by little pointy bullshit symbols.

Had you asked the fucking question, I would have been happy to answer.

I’m out.

If you want to drop the condescension (which is ironic, because it’s clear you know less than nothing about the subject), let me know.

But it’s impossible to discuss anything who bloviates with walls of text to say absolutely nothing.

Suffice it to say that I have answered every question, and you’ve responded with nastiness and immaturity.

Out.

And I’ll part with a simple answer to the question you whine that you asked *DAYYYYS AGO* *SIIIIGHHH*, but never did.

Money is a tax credit which can be used to settle tax debts and all other lawful debts.

All you had to do to get an answer was stop acting like some sort of drama dude with special inside information as a result of being aware of a conspiracy theory which was nonsense from the day Griffin decided he could make more money hawking books about it than he could hawking fake cancer treatments to people dying of cancer.

I've been publicly archiving our discussion on my website since March 26, 2024, 01:56:06 PM
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0
Your failure to follow this discussion is on you.

Dale, and?

“My failure to follow”?

lololol!!

You’re not engaging in any discussion. You’re playing juvenile games.

➽ You’re not engaging in any discussion. You’re playing juvenile games.

The archived discussion indicates you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that.

The proper and correct definition of MONEY is something that is a measure and store of value.

Liars in banking and government don't want that definition to be used. It lays bare their BS.

Dale, that’s not a “correct” definition.

It’s an ideological definition, and I already explained why that definition is both incorrect and harmful.

But you’ve spent so much time prancing around and not answering discussion points that you don’t even know what the hell is going on.

Dale, you’re arguing that you want money to be a specific thing, then saying that what you want should be the definition.

Argument by definition isn’t argument at all, it’s a logical fallacy called tautology.

You said you had questions.

You clearly don’t.

You believe whatever the hell you want, no matter how illogical or specious.

I already pointed out just how factually wrong the one source you identified as is.

No answer from you.

You’re just reiterating nonsense by people who can’t even get their facts straight.

[Dale Eastman]

ME:
The proper and correct definition of MONEY is something that is a measure and store of value.
YOU:
Dale, that’s not a “correct” definition.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I don't belong to your church.
I do not share your religious beliefs.

𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟙. Please explain exactly how money is not a store of value?

Dale, your question is irrelevant.

Houses are a store of value.

They’re not money.

That isn’t the definition of money.

You sure spend a lot of words to end up asking a question which is either wholly irrelevant or based on a false premise.

Maybe if you cut out all the preliminary throat clearing and just got to the point right away, it would be possible to actually have a discussion.

Sadly, I’m not sure your apparently pointlessly argumentative temperament would allow that.

Your 77 word response did not address the question asked.

ME:
The proper and correct definition of MONEY is something that is a measure and store of value.
YOU:
Dale, that’s not a “correct” definition.

𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟚 Admit or deny that with those six words you denied that money is a store of value.

The question you refuse to answer still stands unanswered.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟙. Please explain exactly how money is not a store of value?

Dale, I answered your question about the definition of money days ago.

Since you’re so fond of filling space with words, and screenshotting, I’ll let you go back and find it.

I answered your question about “store of value”, also. Thats not a definition of money. Many things “store value”. That doesn’t make them money.

I also answered, like a week ago, WHY “store of value” is a bad definition of money. A store of value is “better” if it appreciates in value. We do NOT want money to do that.

I explained why we don’t want that last week. Since you screenshot everything, you can go back and look that answer up.

This is all stuff I answered days or weeks ago, and you’re back again, ponderously asking the same questions.

Your obsession with repeating other’s words and displaying screenshots really does keep you from following what others say.

Your 177 word response DID NOT address the very SPECIFIC question asked.

ME:
The proper and correct definition of MONEY is something that is a measure and store of value.
YOU:
Dale, that’s not a “correct” definition.

𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟚 Admit or deny that with those six words you denied that money is a store of value.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟚 Is a very simple question to answer. That you claimed money is not a store of value is plainly evident regardless of your refusal to admit that you denied money is a store of value.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.

The question you refuse to answer still stands unanswered.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟙. Please explain exactly how money is not a store of value?

Dale, your logical fallacy is non sequitur.

Saying that money happens to be a store of value doesn’t mean that’s the definition of it.

“A house is a store of value”.

According to you, that makes a house money.

That’s illogical.

I’ve pointed this out, AND given a definition of money which is unique to money.

And I didn’t claim money was NOT a “store of value”.

I said that’s not the definition of it.

Pay attention, please.

[Dale Eastman]

5 April @ 1506
➽ Saying that money happens to be a store of value doesn’t mean that’s the definition of it.

Your statement of your opinion is noted.

5 April @ 1507
➽ I didn’t claim money was NOT a “store of value”.

You made this claim by very strong implication. I will cede the truth of your claim that you didn't directly claim money was NOT a “store of value”.

You didn't bother to make this claim until after I challenged your implication THREE times. I did so: 4 April @ 0802; 5 April @ 0708; & 5 April @ 0958. I copy-pasted YOUR words in context where you implied this claim On 4 April @ 0802 & 5 April @ 0708 . Do I need to repeat this a third time?

5 April @ 1506
➽ I’ve [...] given a definition of money which is unique to money.

I'll be back in a moment. I'm checking that claim for validity.

Not including this post, the word "money" has been used 70 times in this discussion.

27 March @ 1150 I posted the 28th, 29th, & 30th use of the word:
𝟙. What is "MONEY"?
𝟚. I REJECT this claim. "MONEY" has NOT been defined and agreed to.
𝟛. I don't. "MONEY" has NOT been defined and agreed to.

I did find three of your uses of the word that almost could pass as partial definitions of the word.

27 March @ 0810
money ALWAYS enters the system as [...] accounting entries on a bank’s books.

Didn't define the word.

2 April @ 2011
We use money as a medium to arbitrate the differences in the values of those different goods and services.

Didn't define the word either.

3 April @ 0835
Money is a tax credit which can be used to settle tax debts and all other lawful debts.

Didn't define the word either.

One can use water to wash a car. ⇇ Listing its use does not define what water is.

Dale, money *is* a tax credit.

*of a type* which can be used to settle tax debts and all lawful debts.

That describes what money *is*

* tax credit
* legal tender

Boom.

Objects which “store value” are called “durable goods”.

Functionally, the terms “money” and “currency” are interchangeable.

Money, by the way, is whatever a monetarily sovereign government defines it to be.
It doesn’t matter what you think money SHOULD be.

Thats what money is.

Maybe things would go better if, rather than going on three day misunderstandings of what I said, you spent less time trying to tell me what I said, and more time trying to understand what I said, and asking what I meant if you think I haven’t been clear.

The most unproductive thing in life is putting words in other’s mouths. It just gets nothing done.

But yeah, screenshot that stuff so everyone knows, forever, how you got it wrong because you want me to have said something other than what I did.

I know math is very hard for the left but since Mar-A-Lago is three times the size of the most expensive listing in Palm Beach..

Lefties? Doesn't that translate to closet Marxists?

You wouldn’t know what Marxism is if you had a mouthful.

Nobody of any importance in the US is a Marxist.

But nice try at bringing back red scare McCarthyism.

I acknowledge that you opined and posted your opinion.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur This is a fancy way to say, in Latin Your opinion means nothing my opinion cancels yours

Dale, it’s not my opinion.

It’s a definition, not of how money SHOULD work, but how it is.

You are confusing your threads.
To quote your own words right back at you:
5 April @ 1507
➽ Pay attention, please.

Oh ffs

It’s really hard to tell what thread you’re commenting on, because most of your comments are snarky nonsense that have nothing to do with the topic.

Because YOU are confused, I put your OFF-TOPIC words in the public archive of our OTHER discussion.
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.msg17742#new

6 April @ 0906
➽ The most unproductive thing in life is putting words in other’s mouths.
5 April @ 1506
➽ According to you, that makes a house money.

Like how you attempted to put those words in my mouth?
POT-KETTLE-BLACK.

6 April @ 0906
But yeah, screenshot that stuff so everyone knows, forever, how you got it wrong because you want me to have said something other than what I did.

You have errantly called my "Copy-Pasting" a "screenshot" FOUR times already in this discussion. Yet you presume to educate me regarding the meanings of words, phrases, and terms.

I copy-paste the words of liars, so I can prove their lies by displaying their actual words.

[Dale Eastman]

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.msg17051#msg17051

I told you that I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website. I often peruse such saved discussions to remind myself of missed points, be the points deliberately ignored or simply overlooked. In re-reading the discussion I'm reminded that a question I asked was not adequately answered. To your credit you didn't ignore the question.

I asked: ⇉ If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?

You answered: ➽ That’s called inflation

Your answer admitted that the value of $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress LOST value.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟛. Admit or Deny that is what your answer admitted.

If my labor value stored in $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress LOST value, then some of the purchasing power of the value of my labor stored in those FRN's was stolen from me.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟜. Admit or Deny that is what your answer admitted.

I admitted and then asked: ⇉ My error in not being specific enough with my question. What causes this "INFLATION"?
 In reviewing my question I realize I needed to be more specific with my question.

𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟝. What actions, by whom, took the purchasing power of the value of my labor stored in those FRN's?

Dale, I get it.

You’re super full of yourself.

I answered every question you asked.

Your response has been to claim I didn’t, using odd symbols and claiming you’re screenshotting and posting this somewhere else, as if that’s some sort of dark warning.

I couldn’t care less.

The problem is that you know nothing about the subject.

When I give answers, you don’t know enough to recognize that they *are* answers.

You don’t know enough to know that there aren’t economic facts, there are economic theories.

There are theories of inflation, some of which I think are nonsense (including what you apparently subscribe to, but don’t realize is just one of many theories).

You may not want to screenshot this stuff.

It’s going to look like a cave person telling a modern person that his flashlight is sorcery, and telling the modern person “I’m writing this down on my cave wall, so everyone knows how little you understand about sorcery”.

[Dale Eastman]

➽ I answered every question you asked.

Please note the date-time tags. they will assist you in reading the quoted words in situ.

Quote from: 4 April @ 0802
⇉ 𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟙. Please explain exactly how money is not a store of value?

Quote from: 5 April @ 0708
⇉ 𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟙. Please explain exactly how money is not a store of value?

Quote from: 5 April @ 0708
⇉ 𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟚 Admit or deny that with those six words you denied that money is a store of value.

Quote from: 5 April @ 0958
⇉ 𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟙. Please explain exactly how money is not a store of value?

You did finally address question after I asked it the third time.

Quote from: 5 April @ 1507
➽ I didn’t claim money was NOT a “store of value”.

Quote from: 27 March @ 0747
⇉ If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?

Quote from: 27 March @ 1150
⇉ If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?

Quote from: 1 April @ 1838
You answered: ➽ That’s called inflation

I acknowledge you gave a partial answer.

I asked you:
Quote from: 2 April @ 1043
⇉ What causes this "INFLATION"?

I asked you:
Quote from: 7 April @ 1618
⇉ "𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟛. Admit or Deny that"[...]"Your answer admitted that the value of $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress LOST value."

I asked you:
Quote from: 7 April @ 1618
⇉ "𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟜. Admit or Deny that"[...] "If my labor value stored in $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress LOST value, then some of the purchasing power of the value of my labor stored in those FRN's was stolen from me."

I asked you:
Quote from: 7 April @ 1618
⇉ "𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟝. What actions, by whom, took the purchasing power of the value of my labor stored in those FRN's?"

Quote from: 8 April @ 1341
➽ I answered every question you asked.

Quote from: 6 April @ 1620
⇉ "I copy-paste the words of liars, so I can prove their lies by displaying their actual words."

Quote from: 27 March @ 0747
⇉ I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website.

Quote from: 27 March @ 1150
⇉ I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website.

Quote from: 7 April @ 1618
⇉ I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website.

Thanks For proving my point, and displaying absolutely bizarre behavior.

Yeah, this doesn’t scream “psychotic incel serial killer” at all.

I’m not sure your plodding obsessiveness reveals to the world what you think it does.

Quote from: 27 March @ 0747
⇉ I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website.

Quote from: 27 March @ 1150
⇉ I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website.

Quote from: 7 April @ 1618
⇉ I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website.

“It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again”.

Okay there, Buffalo Bill.

You’ve managed to put the creepiness back in Facebook that it was missing.

Quote from: 8 April @ 1341
I’m not sure your plodding obsessiveness reveals to the world what you think it does.

My "plodding obsessiveness reveals to the world" all the questions I have asked you that you have refused to answer.

Thus based on YOUR claim:
Quote from: 8 April @ 1341
➽ I answered every question you asked.

I can honestly and accurately say: "You a LIAR!"

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.msg17056#msg17056

Dale, huh?

Other than your absolute, stalkerish obsession, what are you trying to make clear here?

That you are provably a LIAR.

Dale, I didn’t lie about anything.

Seek help.

➽ Dale, I didn’t lie about anything.

BULLSHIT!

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.msg17056#msg17056

Dale, you haven’t shown anything. If you think I “lied”, you’re either showing your lack of comprehension or your lack of knowledge of economics.

But above both possibilities, you’re demonstrating an emotional makeup that’s wrapped a little too tightly for social media.

It’s embarrassing to watch.

In the spirit of me getting creeped out by this obsessive behavior, I’m going to put an end to this - whatever weirdness it is.

Have a nice day.

[Dale Eastman]

Greetings and Hello, Ladies, Gentlemen, and Votards of All Politics!!!

The provably-lying PK Simon has blocked me.

I speculate he did this because he didn't like my actually proving he was a liar. On 8 April @ 13:41 Liar Simon claimed: "I answered every question you asked."

I then uploaded a post containing the six questions he ignored along with the dates-times of the original posts containing these questions.

On 27 March @ 0747 I originally asked:
"If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?"

That question was placed in front of Simple Simon four times before he addressed it.

On 1 April @ 18:38 He finally answered: "That’s called inflation"

His answer admitted that the value of $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress LOST value.
His answer also admitted that If my labor value stored in $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress LOST value, then some of the purchasing power of the value of my labor stored in those FRN's was stolen from me

On 2 April @ 10:43 I asked this question: What causes this "INFLATION"?
In reviewing my question I realized I needed to be more specific with my question.
On 7 April @ 16:18 I then asked, "What actions, by whom, took the purchasing power of the value of my labor stored in those FRN's?"

Simple Simon ignored the store of value issue and ignored the loss of value issue.

The entire discussion I had with Simple Simon, complete with text formatting that Fecalbook can't provide, can be read at:
 https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0