Low unemployment rate causes recessions?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
"you need to understand that minimum wage is NOT the entire economy."

So you post 3 links about minimum wage? If it isn't all about minimum wage why do you keep posting links about just that?

You brought up inflation in the 70's and I called it what it was, hyperinflation. Accurately calling inflation "hyper" when it was is not moving the goal pos ...[text shortened]... that do not prove what you are saying is pathetic. Try evidence. It is never too late to start.

The first link was because I knew how you would try to defend your position. It was added to try to make you see, your defense didn't work. Of course, I hoped you would understand what inflation is - sustained increased prices.

The last two links are actually links where increased wages are proven to increase prices, i.e. inflation. But if you want a famous economist's word for it, here is Krugman:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/stagflation-versus-hyperinflation/

[...] plus oil shocks that pushed up inflation across the board thanks to widespread cost-of-living clauses in contracts.

I brought up stagflation, which is what you had in the 70s, a period with high inflation and high unemployment. I haven't seen a single serious economist call it hyperinflation. I actually don't think I've even seen one economist call it hyperinflation. Can you provide a link?

The only person mindlessly doing anything in this thread is you.

You got taken to school, son. It's over.

Originally posted by @lundos
The first link was because I knew how you would try to defend your position. It was added to try to make you see, your defense didn't work. Of course, I hoped you would understand what inflation is - sustained increased prices.

The last two links are actually links where increased wages are proven to increase prices, i.e. inflation. But if you want a fam ...[text shortened]... son mindlessly doing anything in this thread is you.

You got taken to school, son. It's over.

Inflation is inflation. You can call it whatever you want. Stagflation is still inflation. You are making irrelevant arguments to digress away from your failed arguments. You have failed to show any historical example of wage increases causing inflation. I realize you don't want to admit you were wrong, but it is obvious.

If you want a famous economist's word then listen to the late Milton Friedman.
Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"The great inflation was blamed on oil prices, currency speculators, greedy businessmen and avaricious union leaders. However, it is clear that monetary policies, which financed massive budget deficits and were supported by political leaders, were the cause. This mess was proof of what Milton Friedman said in his book "Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History", inflation is always "a monetary phenomenon."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/1970s-great-inflation.asp

If you had a decent understanding of economics you would know Milton Friedman was right and we would not be debating this. All you have to do is ask a genuine economics professor from a university to know I was right all along. They know inflation is a monetary cause. They all teach that.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Inflation is inflation. You can call it whatever you want. Stagflation is still inflation. You are making irrelevant arguments to digress away from your failed arguments. You have failed to show any historical example of wage increases causing inflation. I realize you don't want to admit you were wrong, but it is obvious.

If you want a famous economi ...[text shortened]... ook "Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History", inflation is always "a monetary phenomenon."

No, inflation and hyperinflation are two different things. Don't try and equal the two or talk yourself out of the the lies you've tried to pull. Please provide the links from economists claiming hyperinflation in the US in the 70s.

My arguments are spot on. You know it, I know it and anybody still reading this thread knows it.

I've shown through multiple different sources that wages can have an effect on prices. Holding your breath and sticking your head in the sand doesn't help you. You on the other hand have been trying to change the subject, insulted me and other RHP forum participants and shown a general lack of economic analysis and understanding. And on top of that you've provided zero backup to your case (until your Friedman link in the last post - at least now you're trying).

I've read the Friedman quote before. I've also read a lot of his theories (as it is (or was) part of the University curriculum). Most of them are mathematically nice but have no basis in the real world! Unfortunately, Friedman theories are still held in high regards on the right in the US which is certainly not beneficial to society (https://nordic.businessinsider.com/joseph-stiglitz-milton-friedman-capitalism-theories-2018-3).

I've even mentioned monetarism earlier as I expected you to get there (eventually). Now you are at least showing your true colours (although I didn't think you were a Reagan fan).

Take a look here;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650

In terms of the policies he inspired or influenced, however, the report card is not so glowing. His [Milton Friedman] great claim, the idea that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" may have set off the Monetarist versus Keynesian "econ-wars" of the late 1970s and 1980s. But Friedman's ideas of directly targeting the money supply were tried and rejected as a failure, in both the UK and the US, and Friedman himself backed away from his dogmatic earlier positions. Today, no major central bank directly targets money supply data in setting monetary policy - instead they are far more pragmatic. Even Friedman's great admirer Alan Greenspan never tied himself to the monetarist mast, preferring to keep his options open.

(my highlight).

If you had a decent understanding of economics you would know Milton Friedman was right and we would not be debating this. All you have to do is ask a genuine economics professor from a university to know I was right all along. They know inflation is a monetary cause. They all teach that.

LMAO. I have shown you multiple times I have a 'decent' understanding of economics. I also know that Friedman was wrong - he even corrected himself (unfortunately not enough). You on the other know absolutely nothing!

Of course the universities teach Friedman. He's suggested several important theories that should be taught. Most of it has been proven wrong since, but it's still a great introduction to economics. However, I'm sure you will have a hard time finding a 'genuine economics professor' saying Friedman is right about his (retracted) claim that inflation is only a monetary issue.

Originally posted by @lundos
No, inflation and hyperinflation are two different things. Don't try and equal the two or talk yourself out of the the lies you've tried to pull. Please provide the links from economists claiming hyperinflation in the US in the 70s.

My arguments are spot on. You know it, I know it and anybody still reading this thread knows it.

I've shown through mul ...[text shortened]... r' saying Friedman is right about his (retracted) claim that inflation is only a monetary issue.

How did I lie?

Originally posted by @lundos
No, inflation and hyperinflation are two different things. Don't try and equal the two or talk yourself out of the the lies you've tried to pull. Please provide the links from economists claiming hyperinflation in the US in the 70s.

My arguments are spot on. You know it, I know it and anybody still reading this thread knows it.

I've shown through mul ...[text shortened]... r' saying Friedman is right about his (retracted) claim that inflation is only a monetary issue.

"I've shown through multiple different sources that wages can have an effect on prices."

You have done nothing of the sort. You keep posting links that do not do show that at all. Do you think we are all stupid? Bluffing seems to be habitual with you.

You claimed Friedman has been discredited but you have not shown that either. Just another false claim.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
How did I lie?

Hyperinflation.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
"I've shown through multiple different sources that wages can have an effect on prices."

You have done nothing of the sort. You keep posting links that do not do show that at all. Do you think we are all stupid? Bluffing seems to be habitual with you.

You claimed Friedman has been discredited but you have not shown that either. Just another false claim.

We are getting nowhere. You apparently aren't able to read.

Originally posted by @lundos
Hyperinflation.

Using the term hyperinflation is a lie?

Originally posted by @lundos
We are getting nowhere. You apparently aren't able to read.

Friedman is a Nobel winning economist. Your claim that he retracted his claim that inflation is always a monetary cause is a lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money

I learned from Robert A. Connolly.
You are done.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Using the term hyperinflation is a lie?

Of course not, dummy. They way you used it was.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Friedman is a Nobel winning economist. Your claim that he retracted his claim that inflation is always a monetary cause is a lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money

I learned from Robert A. Connolly.
You are done.

I know who Friedman is. I also know what monetarism is. I mentioned it first, remember? I also wrote that money was neutral in the long run, which more or less is explained in your second link.

However, short run we don't agree. This is the 60 years of economic debate I mentioned in one of my first posts. You (and a lot of (especially right wing) economists) only believe in Friedman. I (and a lot of other (especially mainstream) economists don't agree with him). I've posted links to several articles showing an effect of non-monetary issues (e.g examples of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-push_inflation) on inflation. If you think they are bogus, that's fine.

Retracted might not have been the right word. Amended or - as the link mentions - backed away from might be better formulated. That was poorly phrased.

I don't know who Robert A. Connolly is. When you say you learned from him does that mean you attended and graduated from Kenan-Flagler Business School?

Please ask Robert A. Connolly these two questions if you get the opportunity:
1. Did the US experience hyperinflation in the 1970s?
2. Can asset supply shocks have a short run effect on inflation?

If you are a business school graduate, you would know the above debate, which makes me think you have been doing this only for trolling purposes.

Originally posted by @lundos
Of course not, dummy. They way you used it was.

Nope. I used it properly.

Your ad hominem attack shows you were merely nit picking and you know you were. A difference of 40% and 50% inflation is not much. Hyperinflation was a term used often after 1980.

Originally posted by @lundos
I know who Friedman is. I also know what monetarism is. I mentioned it first, remember? I also wrote that money was neutral in the long run, which more or less is explained in your second link.

However, short run we don't agree. This is the 60 years of economic debate I mentioned in one of my first posts. You (and a lot of (especially right wing) economi ...[text shortened]... know the above debate, which makes me think you have been doing this only for trolling purposes.

Once again, oil price increased in the 70s and after the invasion of Iraq.

Money supply increased a lot more in the 70s. Short term price increases in oil cannot account for long term results that we know happened.

You need to stop making different opinions between economists a popularity contest that you have already decided. You know fully well that Friedman is still relevant today. He didn't win the Nobel Prize for nothing.

The debate is biased in the interest of central bankers. Low unemployment does NOT cause recessions. There is no evidence for that at all.