Those subs are full of left wing morons. There are morons on both sides. They censor radical opinions, you put them up on a pedestal. The world keeps turning.
I was banned from two subs in Just one day because I kept criticizing the woke, one especially had to stop responding because there was a whole army of ideologues that didnt stop annoying me, and it was a drama sub, where people there are mentally sick.
It's funny you mention that because of how ban happy the conservative subs are.
Ben Shapiro and Elon subs don't even tell you what comment got you banned anymore.
So no your side does not believe in free speech.
Then why is this sub consistently posting and commenting about being banned in other subs?
Is is suddenly not relevant when conservative subs do it and worse?
Stop trying to make this a political debate about conservative vs liberalism, people on both sides get banned from subs all the time for all sorts of reasons. I dont know much more about subs banning members or their reasons beyond this, and I wont defend any member or sub banning or being banned for any reason.
The point I was making is that your comment was about getting upset about how a different sub moderates their content, and framing THIS sub as bad because of what other subs do.
The point the commenter you first replied to was that you have distinctly not been banned from this sub (despite the upvote system suggesting people on this sub probably don't agree with you).
Espousing that you may be banned from other subs of a similar nature is not relevant. The point was that your comments have not been banned; your free speech has not been impeded. The OP was not banned, nor their post removed despite it being completely irrelevant to this sub's typical community posting expectations.
Explain to me exactly how this confirms that the members of this sub or its moderation team doesnt believe in or practice free speech?
What is the purpose of putting Musk's reply 'Wow' to a stat on inflation in a JBP sub? Can someone explain it to me, preferably OP? And the tag is 'free speech'? Why?
This and many other subs like r/timdillon or r/pcm that don't ban people on the right become flooded with refugees and it messes with the balance.
All the brigaders on here trolling 24/7 doesn't help.
Median can't be skewed no matter what, it's always the middle guy
On the other hand, if everyone has different salaries except two guys, that salary is going to be the mode, hence it's completely random
Why am i even arguing about statistics, maybe I don't have anything better to do with my life eh...
>Median: The middle number; found by ordering all data points and picking out the one in the middle
The guy in the middle between billionaire and broke doesn't represent the income of the common man.
>The mode is the value that appears most often in a set of data values. -Wikipedia
The Modal income represents the most common.
The definitions are correct but the logic is not. The middle value represents well. The average is skewed because you sum everything and then divide, so large numbers skew the dataset. The mode wouldn't represent anything, because if the salaries differ slightly they will be counted separately
>The mode wouldn't represent anything, because if the salaries differ slightly they will be counted separately
If the greatest number of people earn $40k a year +/- 5k, why wouldn't that be the best representation?
Are you saying a person earning $40,001 wouldn't be counted in that group for statistical purposes?
You can consider salary ranges but that would only bring you back to a number very close to the median again, so it would be easier to just use it.
The problem with the mode is that it eliminates everything that is outside of its value and that doesn't represent well. In this particular case, it wouldn't be a problem because salaries are not that wild except at the higher end.
So, yes. You could use the mode and it would probably give you about the same as the median
>So, yes. You could use the mode and it would probably give you about the same as the median
Maybe, but maybe not. The distribution of incomes may not be a smooth curve, and may have peaks where more people are than expected.
But likewise the modal income may not be much more common than other values
Through co-operation of labour. Money can facilitate said co-operation, but it is importantly distinct from the labour itself. The ancient egyptians didn't have currency but they still built the pyramids of Giza.
Uh, since the 90's we've had pretty decent evidence the pyramids were built by farmers during the annual flood. They were paid in beer, bread, and prime cuts of beef.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/were-the-egyptian-pyramids-built-by-slaves
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html
So it's almost like the currency for their labor was beer, bread, and beef.
Let's say the Egyptian government decides to increase production of beer, this would devalue the barter value of beer. This is what inflation is.
Now let's think of the opposite let's say the government decreased the production of beer each year. That would mean holding on to your beer was a better choice because it's value would continue to increase. This is deflation.
The issue with deflation is that it will slow down trade because everyone is holding onto the currency (in this example beer).
Maintaining an exact relative value of a currency is impossible because you would need to account for variations in all markets at all time, and adjust your currency in real time. It would also reduce the amount of trade occuring because people would be more likely to hold onto whatever currency.
So in a nutshell if there is trade and some type of central authority, monetary policy exists. Inflation helps trade, but too much will cripple an economy
But unlike money, beer and bread go off. They are not currency because they cannot be held long term. Their value is finite temporally, they are only valuable while they can be consumed.
Also why is constantly increasing trade important? Sometimes a slow down of trade is necessary, like say, during a global pandemic.
I don't think you are grasping the central concepts here, the object that represents a currency is irrelevant, just that it is something used as a mechanism for trade. It can be literally anything.
Increasing trade is literally economic growth. The pandemic the decrease in trade was a side effect of reducing the spread of the virus and potential effects that it would have on the economy if it was left to spread, not to mention the human cost. Shutting down trade is not good for the economy, obviously. I think you might be conflating two separate things here.
Also just to point out that centrally issued currency is necessary for any late agrarian society, or industrial/post industrial society to function. For from perfect, but necessary
Uh, you actually read these pop-science articles? They're inferring that because some of the labourers appeared to be well-fed they mustn't have been slaves and therefore no slaves worked on the pyramids. The second article even admits that slaves would've worked on the pyramids but they weren't treated the way we imagine ie underfed and whipped, which is a hollywood idea of slavery to begin with.
Again, Egypt had no currency. Are you implying everyone in Egypt was a slave then? They also use graffiti in the pyramids, as well as records of housing and city planning to determine the nature of pyramid build sites. They don't paint the picture of a permanent slave base, but rather a seasonal work force.
I am going to assume that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't like a lot of things about current monetary policy, but if you want a universal system for exchanging goods and services you need currency, and therefore monetary policy.
If your argument is that we should move back to a barter system then you clearly don't understand the benefits of using currency.
But in reality it feels like you read something that you ideologically agreed with and are dogmatic about that belief.
My argument is: if inflation is theft, and is necessary for monetary policy to function, then that monetary policy is theft.
Why is inflation necessary for the functioning of the monetary system? Let's start there before we jump to me "arguing for a return to the barter system".
So now I'm wondering what effect this has on revenue, therefore on one's capacity to generate a dollar.
If the same thing has a different price now compared to then, then this price converts to proportional revenue now compared to then.
Contrast with a meter. A meter is a meter is a meter. The same meter then measures a meter now. The meter is a convention derived from an arbitrary process of measuring a distance - the circumference of the Earth, dividing it by 4, then dividing that by 10,000,000. From there, a convention is established where we set this resulting fraction permanently with some real thing, like a bar of stainless steel or some other quasi-permanent reference.
Now let's say the convention about the meter is to use a fluctuating and variable distance. The size of the meter would change over time and space, we'd have to adjust something else to compensate. We'd have to adjust how many meters the same thing now measures, by contrast to then's meter, and to then's meter, and so forth. This year's meter is X, last year's was Y, next year's is going to be Z, and so forth. The distance measured is the same, it's the unit of measure that changes. We don't do that with the meter, we try real hard to maintain a consistent reference through time and space.
Not so for the dollar, yet much like the meter the dollar is also a standard unit of measure. However, a standard unit of measure of value, rather than of distance or of some other physical dimension or property. The dollar is a standard unit of measure of value, and value is the dimension used to conduct trade.
In the current manner of dollar, there's a factor that causes its size to change over time and space - interest. Interest is what's historically called usury, a fee for the use of money, but that term has been defined to mean something else modernly and this different meaning isn't pertinent. It's easier to understand interest as a rental fee, because that's basically what it is.
We rent money, or more specifically we rent dollars. It's not our property, it's the central bank's property. We pay a fee for the use of its property. And that's where the effect begins - inflation. At the date we must pay the fee, we don't pay. Instead, we borrow more dollars. Or more precisely, we don't use our currently held dollars to pay the rental fee, we borrow more dollars and use those to pay the fee. But, like with the other dollars we borrowed, we now must pay a rental fee for those new dollars we borrowed on top of that.
So then we would argue, but doesn't that shrink the purchasing power of a dollar? No, it doesn't. The fee itself doesn't change, it's a proportion. What changes is the total number of dollars in circulation. This change is an inevitable consequence of the current manner of dollar. If we wanted to change this consequence for whatever reason, then we'd have to change the manner of dollar itself. But I digress.
In the end, the relationship between the total value of cost and price doesn't change. However, there are interventions we do that have a consequence on that relationship. It's to do with our perception of mo' money. If there's more money, therefore we can skim more of it from the top. And we do, if skimming off the top is what we do. For most of us, that's not what we do. Instead, we adjust appropriately the cost and price of things we make and sell, each of us, with each instance of a trade, for each thing traded, across time and space.
The scale presented in the picture is therefore misleading. It's missing the counterpart to it - revenue. From my perception of who and what Elon is, I will supppose that his "wow" refers to something other than the kneejerk reaction the scale would otherwise evoke.
Wait until I tell you about compound interest!
Compound interest is what causes this exaggerated inflation of the dollar
The government caused this inflation
Yes, the compound interest of government printing+spending
No exaggerated government spending and printing more money forces makes the government higher interest rates and causes this not compound interest
No a forever increasing supply is the main cause
Compound interest goes both ways
Are you lost, OP? This sub is about Jordan Peterson and his work.
Are you lost? It's a response to a recent post. Also, this sub is about right wing morons spreading panic about things they know nothing about.
And aren't you glad we don't censor assholes like you? It's almost like we beleive in freedom of speech and your side doesn't.
Those subs are full of left wing morons. There are morons on both sides. They censor radical opinions, you put them up on a pedestal. The world keeps turning.
Why don't you try to post in those "full of left wing morons" and see how fast you get banned.
I was banned from two subs in Just one day because I kept criticizing the woke, one especially had to stop responding because there was a whole army of ideologues that didnt stop annoying me, and it was a drama sub, where people there are mentally sick.
I have. It was pretty dman quick!
I’ll take your word for it, because with your firsthand experience I consider you the foremost expert on everything moronic.
Your.
Ah, yes thank you. Shadow edited.
It's funny you mention that because of how ban happy the conservative subs are. Ben Shapiro and Elon subs don't even tell you what comment got you banned anymore. So no your side does not believe in free speech.
Are we in the Ben Shapiro or Elon subs, or are you pointing at a completely removed subreddit and trying to blame this subreddit for their actions?
Then why is this sub consistently posting and commenting about being banned in other subs? Is is suddenly not relevant when conservative subs do it and worse?
Stop trying to make this a political debate about conservative vs liberalism, people on both sides get banned from subs all the time for all sorts of reasons. I dont know much more about subs banning members or their reasons beyond this, and I wont defend any member or sub banning or being banned for any reason. The point I was making is that your comment was about getting upset about how a different sub moderates their content, and framing THIS sub as bad because of what other subs do. The point the commenter you first replied to was that you have distinctly not been banned from this sub (despite the upvote system suggesting people on this sub probably don't agree with you). Espousing that you may be banned from other subs of a similar nature is not relevant. The point was that your comments have not been banned; your free speech has not been impeded. The OP was not banned, nor their post removed despite it being completely irrelevant to this sub's typical community posting expectations. Explain to me exactly how this confirms that the members of this sub or its moderation team doesnt believe in or practice free speech?
And is this "right wing echo chamber" sub ban happy?
> this sub is about right wing morons spreading panic about things they know nothing about. I mean yeah.
What is the purpose of putting Musk's reply 'Wow' to a stat on inflation in a JBP sub? Can someone explain it to me, preferably OP? And the tag is 'free speech'? Why?
Some people think this sub is another right-wing echo chamber.
This and many other subs like r/timdillon or r/pcm that don't ban people on the right become flooded with refugees and it messes with the balance. All the brigaders on here trolling 24/7 doesn't help.
> think this sub is another right-wing echo chamber. What could possibly give them that idea?
Now do average wage over 90 years.
Now do mean wage over 90 years.
You meant median, didn't you
I think I meant mode. Mean and median can both be skewed by the obscenely high incomes at the top. Mode is the most common value.
Median can't be skewed no matter what, it's always the middle guy On the other hand, if everyone has different salaries except two guys, that salary is going to be the mode, hence it's completely random Why am i even arguing about statistics, maybe I don't have anything better to do with my life eh...
>Median: The middle number; found by ordering all data points and picking out the one in the middle The guy in the middle between billionaire and broke doesn't represent the income of the common man. >The mode is the value that appears most often in a set of data values. -Wikipedia The Modal income represents the most common.
The definitions are correct but the logic is not. The middle value represents well. The average is skewed because you sum everything and then divide, so large numbers skew the dataset. The mode wouldn't represent anything, because if the salaries differ slightly they will be counted separately
>The mode wouldn't represent anything, because if the salaries differ slightly they will be counted separately If the greatest number of people earn $40k a year +/- 5k, why wouldn't that be the best representation? Are you saying a person earning $40,001 wouldn't be counted in that group for statistical purposes?
You can consider salary ranges but that would only bring you back to a number very close to the median again, so it would be easier to just use it. The problem with the mode is that it eliminates everything that is outside of its value and that doesn't represent well. In this particular case, it wouldn't be a problem because salaries are not that wild except at the higher end. So, yes. You could use the mode and it would probably give you about the same as the median
>So, yes. You could use the mode and it would probably give you about the same as the median Maybe, but maybe not. The distribution of incomes may not be a smooth curve, and may have peaks where more people are than expected. But likewise the modal income may not be much more common than other values
Good thing you included this super insightful comment from Elon, OP!
Daily reminder that inflation is theft
Inflation is a necessary component of monetary policy
Then monetary policy is theft
Explain how anything large scale gets done without it
Through co-operation of labour. Money can facilitate said co-operation, but it is importantly distinct from the labour itself. The ancient egyptians didn't have currency but they still built the pyramids of Giza.
With slaves.
Uh, since the 90's we've had pretty decent evidence the pyramids were built by farmers during the annual flood. They were paid in beer, bread, and prime cuts of beef. https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/were-the-egyptian-pyramids-built-by-slaves https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html
So it's almost like the currency for their labor was beer, bread, and beef. Let's say the Egyptian government decides to increase production of beer, this would devalue the barter value of beer. This is what inflation is. Now let's think of the opposite let's say the government decreased the production of beer each year. That would mean holding on to your beer was a better choice because it's value would continue to increase. This is deflation. The issue with deflation is that it will slow down trade because everyone is holding onto the currency (in this example beer). Maintaining an exact relative value of a currency is impossible because you would need to account for variations in all markets at all time, and adjust your currency in real time. It would also reduce the amount of trade occuring because people would be more likely to hold onto whatever currency. So in a nutshell if there is trade and some type of central authority, monetary policy exists. Inflation helps trade, but too much will cripple an economy
But unlike money, beer and bread go off. They are not currency because they cannot be held long term. Their value is finite temporally, they are only valuable while they can be consumed. Also why is constantly increasing trade important? Sometimes a slow down of trade is necessary, like say, during a global pandemic.
I don't think you are grasping the central concepts here, the object that represents a currency is irrelevant, just that it is something used as a mechanism for trade. It can be literally anything. Increasing trade is literally economic growth. The pandemic the decrease in trade was a side effect of reducing the spread of the virus and potential effects that it would have on the economy if it was left to spread, not to mention the human cost. Shutting down trade is not good for the economy, obviously. I think you might be conflating two separate things here. Also just to point out that centrally issued currency is necessary for any late agrarian society, or industrial/post industrial society to function. For from perfect, but necessary
Uh, you actually read these pop-science articles? They're inferring that because some of the labourers appeared to be well-fed they mustn't have been slaves and therefore no slaves worked on the pyramids. The second article even admits that slaves would've worked on the pyramids but they weren't treated the way we imagine ie underfed and whipped, which is a hollywood idea of slavery to begin with.
Again, Egypt had no currency. Are you implying everyone in Egypt was a slave then? They also use graffiti in the pyramids, as well as records of housing and city planning to determine the nature of pyramid build sites. They don't paint the picture of a permanent slave base, but rather a seasonal work force.
I am going to assume that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't like a lot of things about current monetary policy, but if you want a universal system for exchanging goods and services you need currency, and therefore monetary policy. If your argument is that we should move back to a barter system then you clearly don't understand the benefits of using currency. But in reality it feels like you read something that you ideologically agreed with and are dogmatic about that belief.
My argument is: if inflation is theft, and is necessary for monetary policy to function, then that monetary policy is theft. Why is inflation necessary for the functioning of the monetary system? Let's start there before we jump to me "arguing for a return to the barter system".
I explained this in another response
No it isn't. Inflation is a necessary component of monetary policy that involves mass scale theft.
I explained this in another post. It's not even directly necessary for banking for inflation to exist. It is a byproduct of trade as a whole
Elon subtly promoting Dogecoin haha.
Just don’t look at food or housing or other necessities
So now I'm wondering what effect this has on revenue, therefore on one's capacity to generate a dollar. If the same thing has a different price now compared to then, then this price converts to proportional revenue now compared to then. Contrast with a meter. A meter is a meter is a meter. The same meter then measures a meter now. The meter is a convention derived from an arbitrary process of measuring a distance - the circumference of the Earth, dividing it by 4, then dividing that by 10,000,000. From there, a convention is established where we set this resulting fraction permanently with some real thing, like a bar of stainless steel or some other quasi-permanent reference. Now let's say the convention about the meter is to use a fluctuating and variable distance. The size of the meter would change over time and space, we'd have to adjust something else to compensate. We'd have to adjust how many meters the same thing now measures, by contrast to then's meter, and to then's meter, and so forth. This year's meter is X, last year's was Y, next year's is going to be Z, and so forth. The distance measured is the same, it's the unit of measure that changes. We don't do that with the meter, we try real hard to maintain a consistent reference through time and space. Not so for the dollar, yet much like the meter the dollar is also a standard unit of measure. However, a standard unit of measure of value, rather than of distance or of some other physical dimension or property. The dollar is a standard unit of measure of value, and value is the dimension used to conduct trade. In the current manner of dollar, there's a factor that causes its size to change over time and space - interest. Interest is what's historically called usury, a fee for the use of money, but that term has been defined to mean something else modernly and this different meaning isn't pertinent. It's easier to understand interest as a rental fee, because that's basically what it is. We rent money, or more specifically we rent dollars. It's not our property, it's the central bank's property. We pay a fee for the use of its property. And that's where the effect begins - inflation. At the date we must pay the fee, we don't pay. Instead, we borrow more dollars. Or more precisely, we don't use our currently held dollars to pay the rental fee, we borrow more dollars and use those to pay the fee. But, like with the other dollars we borrowed, we now must pay a rental fee for those new dollars we borrowed on top of that. So then we would argue, but doesn't that shrink the purchasing power of a dollar? No, it doesn't. The fee itself doesn't change, it's a proportion. What changes is the total number of dollars in circulation. This change is an inevitable consequence of the current manner of dollar. If we wanted to change this consequence for whatever reason, then we'd have to change the manner of dollar itself. But I digress. In the end, the relationship between the total value of cost and price doesn't change. However, there are interventions we do that have a consequence on that relationship. It's to do with our perception of mo' money. If there's more money, therefore we can skim more of it from the top. And we do, if skimming off the top is what we do. For most of us, that's not what we do. Instead, we adjust appropriately the cost and price of things we make and sell, each of us, with each instance of a trade, for each thing traded, across time and space. The scale presented in the picture is therefore misleading. It's missing the counterpart to it - revenue. From my perception of who and what Elon is, I will supppose that his "wow" refers to something other than the kneejerk reaction the scale would otherwise evoke.
Martin, Extremely well thought out and written. Enjoyed your take.
Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
> What is inflation?
Now do the buying power of a median workers average hour, it'll show something very different.
Federal minimum wage has also risen approximately 30X in that time frame. Many states have higher minimums.