And again, how are terrorist strikes within one’s borders consistent with revolutions in neighbouring countries? The US isn’t launching drone strikes in Pakistan because they are worried about terrorists bombing Pakistani targets.
That’s a good one guy.
I watched the video. It didn’t have anything even close to what you’re claiming, but the fact that you misrepresent the contents of the video is indicative how how little people should pay attention to your ramblings, peaced1k.
This is you claiming it’s a coup. This is you claiming they’re THE power brokers who have the power to appoint new leaders. As I said before, your understanding of foreign relations comes from an episode of the teletubbies. Anytime any kind of political power shift happens anywhere in the world these conversations are happening. A video of some people discussing who they’d like to be the new power brokers isn’t proof that they have the power to choose that person, which is what you’re claiming.
1 Like
It’s called inflation, Einstein, and it’s what happens to the value of all your existing currency when you print more.
Nope. Your economic model is far too simplistic. Attempting to foist it upon actually existing economies will lead to economic ruin.
Your comment confuses me.
If I might be so bold as to quotewikipedia?
Historically, a great deal of economic literature was concerned with the question of what causes inflation and what effect it has.
And yet you wrote
If you really believe that the only cost of giving away money is the actual printing cost then go get a grasp of basic economic principles before trying to sound smart. It’s called inflation, Einstein, and it’s what happens to the value of all your existing currency when you print more.
This is an oversimplification of the real consensus view of economists–
Economists generally believe that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply.
What’s too high? What’s excessive? You might argue that any growth in the money supply is excessive, and any rate of inflation higher than zero is less than optimal. But than, you’d be courting Deflation, which is associated with economic depressions, among other calamities.
Of course, you may already have adapted a heterodox theory of economics that spurns complex reality in favor of some other, simpler, more dangerous, truth.
In any case, the United States doesn’t print money. It prints bonds, which are sold in return for money. A very small interest rate is sufficient to attract enough buyers.
You need to pay attention when you listen teapot. How fluent is your English language? Maybe that’s the problem.
If you’re not convinced by my explanation, here’s an excerpt from a piece in The Washington Post on this same subject:
“Nuland also assessed the political skills of Ukrainian opposition figures with unusual candor and, along with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, debated strategy for their cause, laying bare a deep degree of U.S. involvement in affairs that Washington officially says are Ukraine’s to resolve.
…
Nuland and Pyatt speak like political strategists, or perhaps like party bosses in a smoky back room. Using shorthand and nicknames, they game out what they would like to see opposition figures do and say, and discuss how best to influence some opposition decision-making.”
Notice how, even being diplomatic in their assessment, the paper still makes some very strong statements about the whole affair? Good.
C’mon man… really?
Economists generally believe that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply.
inflation .. it's what happens to the value of all your existing currency when you print more.
The only difference between these two is the moderators. This is semantics, and semantics that don’t really disprove what I said. Printing money causes inflation. Printing a little money causes a little inflation. Printing a lot of money causes a lot of inflation. It’s dilution no matter what the scale.
In any case, the United States doesn’t print money.
Then where do all these greenbacks keep coming from? 
I suppose you paid for your home using cash?
Aw, peaced1k’s upset because he has no concept of how international relations works and, worse yet, is entirely unable to parse English sentences and determine their meaning.
Let’s read a little more from your WAPO article, shall we? Maybe I’ll quote some of the words that fall outside your cherry picking of the only two paragraphs in the entire article that support your paranoia.
But it was the blunt nature of her remarks, rather than U.S. diplomatic calculations, that seemed exceptional.
Gee whiz, the article says the opposite of what you’re claiming.
Using shorthand and nicknames, they game out what they would like to see opposition figures do and say, and discuss how best to influence some opposition decision-making.
See, peaced1k: the conversation is about their desires, not their capabilities.
Nuland bluntly says she does not want to see opposition leader Vitali Klitschko join the government, and Pyatt agrees. … She says another leader, “Yats,” has the economic experience that both the Americans apparently think Klitschko lacks. That is apparently a reference to opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who was offered the post of prime minister. Klitschko was offered the post of deputy prime minister. Both men declined.
So… these all-powerful masters of the universe didn’t get their way? But I thought they were calling the shots?
“It shouldn’t be a surprise that at any point there have been discussions about recent events and offers and what is happening on the ground,” Psaki said.
No. It shouldn’t. Because these kinds of discussions happen in the foreign relations departments of every government any time there’s a shift in political power. You are obviously unaware of this, or you feel like you’ve dug in this far and would like to continue responding to me in the hope I lose interest in making an example of your foolishness. Good luck.
Umm… how fluent is your “English language”?
Hey, I read an Op-Ed in the NYT that discussed what they would like the opposition to do and how best to influence them into doing those things. Does this mean the NYT is also behind the revolution?
1 Like
You betcha.
Do you have something against inflation? And no, you won’t be able to squeeze out of this by serenading us with tales of wheelbarrows full of Reichsmarks. Nope. You’ve just drawn the unenviable, and probably impossible task of proving, with reference to the economic literature, that all non-zero inflation is detrimental to society.
Hahahaha his original opening line was “You’re not very smart, are you? That’s perfectly ok though, stupid ain’t against the law.”
@Peacen1k So you removed one grammatical error in favour of another? Way to lesson me a teach.
You’ve just drawn the unenviable, and probably impossible task of proving, with reference to the economic literature, that all non-zero inflation is detrimental to society.
No thanks. I never claimed anything of the sort, so I wont be baited into answering your question. I made no judgement calls on inflation itself, beyond the comment that printing money causes inflation… That is undeniable.
Let me go back over this in case you’ve forgotten. Ahmed said:
Its easy to give away money when your only cost is that of printing it.
which is making the suggestion that the only cost to the US of donating money is the actual printing of it. That ignores the reality that when you print more money the value of all the other money floating around decreases. This is not a discussion about the benefits or drawbacks of inflation, no matter how much you want to show us your 1337 economic credentialz.
Thing is, that’s all that’s been written on this subject. Opinions.
p.s. Grammar trumps comprehension. So you’ve been doing well here. Right on.
You accuse me of cherry picking and then yourself go and cherry pick single words out of paragraphs? And then you quote the State Department spokeswoman as an argument in your favor? That just shows how right I was in my original assessment of your abilities (that you conveniently quoted).
you realise that inflation is a concequence of printing money, which is good, but what you do not realise is that the people behind printing the money, do not care about the inflation. They just sit back relax and print some more for themselves. So while everybody’s else money loose its value bit by bit, those holding the presses just shove their hands a little deeper in the honeypot. You do not need to be an economist to realise that.
Nor calling others names gives any validity to your comments.
Mod note: The snark is getting thick in here. Stahp it!
I will have to agree with anyone who finds your theory overly simple.
Is this lose/loose thing like washington/warshington? Is it a regionalism that the internet has introduced me to, or do you just not realize you’ve used the wrong word? I would’t press my point on your English, but you’re being a bit of a pedant on economics, so…
I may make language mistakes since english is not my mothertongue. So not loose, but lose.
why do you think that because the theory is simple, it must be wrong?
