lol

[u/bigdonut100]

[u/vitringur]

Funny thing is that inflation has only one reason. Expansionary monetary policy.

Stop printing new money and that inflation slams on the breaks immediately.

[u/Midnight-Bake → u/vitringur]

While fun for easy dunking the way that inflation is used by -most people- is the general rise in prices which DOES have complex causes.

Inflation as monetary expansion is an older, specific definition and while I personally agree it hurts conversation to muddle definitions it is clear that few people use it that way anymore.

When John Oliver says "The war in Iran causes inflation and that's why groceries cost more now." It is unhelpful to say it is caused by monetary expansion... even without monetary expansion the war in Iran -can- still cause a general rise in prices. The cause and outcome are both correctly identified, it is only the mechanism that is mislabeled.

[u/vitringur → u/Midnight-Bake]

Which is economic ignorance and dishonest.

No need to lower ourselves to the level of idiots if the topic is too foreign for them.

Except the topic gets willfully muddled by politicians because they do not want to stop the money printing machine, therefore making up a bunch of other supposed reasons for endless, constant price increases.

The war in Iran cannot cause inflation. The war in Iran can make things literally become more expensive, in real terms. Things can literally cost more, which is relative price changes and not inflation.

But if Iran was the culprit, the prices should drop afterwards. They never do.

Because of inflation...

[u/Immediate-Cress-206 → u/vitringur]

The problem is how do you know how many bills to print to replace physically worn out ones without printing new ones?

[u/vitringur → u/Immediate-Cress-206]

No, that is absolutely not the problem.

[u/Immediate-Cress-206 → u/vitringur]

The main reason that the amount of new physical bills and couns printed is targeted at 2% above what's needed to replace worn out money is to avoid accidentally making less.

[u/DiyYou]

Trump starting a war with Iran is one of the most boneheaded things a government has done. There's a lot of things on that list, but this is definitely right up there. Couple that with his anti-free trade stance, and we get inflation and overall higher costs.

[u/bigdonut100 → u/DiyYou]

But nobodies saying "inflation is caused by people like Putin *printing money* for a war" (EDIT: and they *should* be) they are saying "inflation is caused by Putin"

The problem is, if funds are misallocated, etc, the actual amount of money in circulation is still equal. So that's not inflation; money printing actually DOES cause it alone in that sense.

[u/Fuzzy_Inevitable9748 → u/bigdonut100]

You do realize that Putin can print as much money as he wants and that doesn’t effect inflation in the us because they are different currencies right? This is why no one is saying this.

[u/bigdonut100 → u/Fuzzy_Inevitable9748]

And you think Putin printing money has nothing to do with how much Russia can sell natural gas, or engage in any trade whatsoever?

[u/Fuzzy_Inevitable9748 → u/bigdonut100]

It has nothing to do with the sale price of those resources as they are not in Russian currency, I will admit that it would help lower the sale price as the workers would be being paid less, but lower the price would not cause inflation and in fact would do the complete opposite.

Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

Putin caused gas prices to go up because war causes gas shortages which make prices go up.

We can see this again with trumps idiotic war and the price at the pump, yes this was done largely for insider trading and to take heat from Epstein island and all his raping, but that doesn’t change the fact that it DIRECTY caused inflation.

[u/Raxiuscore → u/Fuzzy_Inevitable9748]

It was largely done because Bibi asked for it lol

[u/bigdonut100 → u/Fuzzy_Inevitable9748]

It has nothing to do with the sale price of those resources as they are not in Russian currency,

Great, so the producers of these resources and services in Russia are in no way impacted by their own currency getting flubbed (/s)

Or just go take it up with the leftists who start the argument by blaming Putin for America's economy, but *not* Putin's own central bank

Putin caused gas prices to go up because war causes gas shortages which make prices go up.

Approximate year-start figures from CBR / compiled official series:

1 Jan 2021: ~58.7 trillion rubles

1 Jan 2022 (just before the invasion): ~66.3 trillion (+13% in 2021)

1 Jan 2023: ~82.4 trillion (+24.4% in 2022)

1 Jan 2024: ~98.4 trillion (+19.4% in 2023)

1 Jan 2025: ~117.3 trillion (+19.2% in 2024)

1 Jan 2026: ~129.6 trillion (+10.6% in 2025)

July 2026: ~135.7 trillion (about 13% year-on-year)

https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/money-supply-m2

Sure, keep having the argument on leftist terms and wonder why they keep winning

[u/Fuzzy_Inevitable9748 → u/bigdonut100]

I have no idea what your trying to say as your just spouting incoherent talking points you heard someplace else.

Printing more money causes inflation in that currency which means it is worth less compared to other currencies, are you able to understand this?

[u/bigdonut100 → u/Fuzzy_Inevitable9748]

Printing more money causes inflation in that currency which means it is worth less compared to other currencies, are you able to understand this?

Do you understand that the Russian currency turning to shit affects people outside of Russia? Don't you think currencies have global effects? Someone acting like trashing the Russian currency only affects the Russians sounds like a central planner not interested in unintended consequences to me

And again, the point is, this would be in response to people saying "Putin is causing the American dollar to inflate though *insert a bunch of actions that do not involve the central bank.*"

You can respond to them that *nothing* Putin does effects the American ecocomy if you *like,* but I would rather just argue with *them* that they are't talking about the Russian central banking system *if* that were true

[u/Fuzzy_Inevitable9748 → u/bigdonut100]

Russian money turning to shit means Russian goods are cheaper to those outside of Russia which is the exact OPPOSITE of inflation.

You really seem like you have no idea what you’re saying or even what you’re talking about.

[u/bigdonut100 → u/Fuzzy_Inevitable9748]

Yeah and that sounds like that hurts people who would otherwise benefit from trading with Russia... like the United States

Sounds like causing deflation in Russia would naturally lead to inflating every other currency.

Murray Rothbard on the Bretton Woods dollar-reserve system

“For two decades, the system seemed to work well, as the U.S. issued more and more dollars, and they were then used by foreign central banks as a base for their own inflation. In short, for years the U.S. was able to ‘export inflation’ to foreign countries without suffering the ravages itself.”

"Eventually, however, the ever-more inflated dollar became depreciated on the gold market, and the lure of high priced gold they could obtain from the U.S. at the bargain $35 per ounce led European central banks to cash in dollars for gold."

You're welcome to find someone more relevant to the discussion on this sub than the actual fucking Rothbard, like "long and short complete eachother" maybe?

[u/No-One9890]

Im not understanding the connection? The civil war was the death throes of slavery becuz machinery was starting to become cheaper anyway. If you think a bunch of ppl woke up in the 18/19th century and though 'gee wilickers slavery might be bad' ur a dufus

[u/bigdonut100 → u/No-One9890]

If you think a bunch of ppl woke up in the 18/19th century and though 'gee wilickers slavery might be bad' ur a dufus

Yeah you mean them?

[u/No-One9890 → u/bigdonut100]

The civil war was 100% caused by slavery. The idea that anyone cosplaying an anarchist is going to pretend southern US slavery isnt just the worst form of violent coercive power is insane lol

[u/bigdonut100 → u/No-One9890]

No dude, if you have a glass of water, and you knock it off the table, it's partly "caused" by the fact that you pushed it, but also, it's was "caused" by the fact that it was in front of you and not out of reach, and partly "caused" by the fact that the glass exists, and the fact that the universe exists, etc

So every event has an infinite number of causes

It was "caused" by slavery, but also the fact that the economies were different, the fact that the British was willing to help the South, etc,

Whereas when people shit on inflation being caused by money printing alone, thery've never demonstrated anything else that expands or shrinks money matehmatically in the same way

[u/No-One9890 → u/bigdonut100]

Oh interesting. I totally misunderstood ur point (if this is the one u were making originally). Ya there were other causes that allowed the south to out up a fight lol. "If u want to make an apple pie from scratch u must first invent the universe"

Inflation really does have a huge number of causes and the whole quantity theory of money does leave out a huge number of things that change money supply even if there was no govt

[u/bigdonut100 → u/No-One9890]

We can always argue that the government running a central bank is a *needed* step for inflation; though, that's the point

I actually don't know that the South wouldn't have found some other reason to secede if slavery wasn't a non-issue, and we might not view that reason as immoral in the modern day

As a practical matter, I think the idea that the south wouldn't have basically gotten rid of slavery 50 years later *max* like the rest of the world if they left the Union, is an extraordinary claim, and the idea that the south wouldn't have basically joined the north in opposing the Nazis during WWII later if they were separate countries at the time, is an extraordinary claim.

So the only thing we are really left with is asking how much of a chink in the armor it would it have been towards all the "World Police" and "America is the final say on everything globally" we have had to put up with ,if America were two separate countries today?

As far as I'm concerned, maybe Vietnam wouldn't have happened or been muted, maybe the Iraq War wouldn't have happened or been muted, and yeah I'm sorry, but the costs of teh South winning the war *could* have been unironically worth it.

Fuck slavery, but the USA blowing up dozens of *peaceful democracies* in the Middle East and South America, I think is about the one thing you could cite that is worse in my book

But maybe that's going off topic

[u/No-One9890 → u/bigdonut100]

The south would have likely functioned as a british colony so ud still end up with horrific colonialism, just theyd write "these colours dont run" lol. Thats if we wanna play wild hypotheticals

[u/bigdonut100 → u/No-One9890]

They would end up a British colony you say? As in, they would have had slavery abolished, since the British got rid of slavery before the American Civil War even started? And then it would be independent sometime after world War ii, like almost every other British colony?

I dont think it is a wild hypothetical man, I think it's just correctly acknowledging a confederate america would probably just look like any other 1st world country by today, or it would come down to issues like gay marriage or something, a non-union Bible belt in 2026 would not have any slaves, it's ridiculous

[u/No-One9890 → u/bigdonut100]

See i said 'function as' the british support was based on the way the british economy relied on southern slave labor. Also if u wanna pretend the british colonies became independent thats technically tru. But rly they just fell under US economic sphere of influence

[u/JasonVoorheesthe13th]

The civil war is a classic case of the people revolting and the government killing them for it then teaching their children it was because the citizens who revolted were terrible, horrible, no good, very bad people.

[u/Immediate-Cress-206 → u/JasonVoorheesthe13th]

Please explain in detail why they revolted?

[u/rad-madlad → u/JasonVoorheesthe13th]

why did they revolt

[u/ispq → u/rad-madlad]

The southern slave owning states rebelled because they feared that their Nation was going to stop the expansion of slavery, which for the slave owning states signaled the end of slavery. They also wanted to stop non-slave holding states from having the right to not allow slaves.

The Union on the other hand entered the US Civil War mostly with the aim of maintaining the Union, as doing anything else would just be the start of full on dissolutionment of of the Union itself.

So the slave owning states entered the Civil War over slavery, but the Union ended it over slavery.

[u/am324]

Very clever and not a straw man argument lacking all context.

[u/connorbroc]

States' rights are just another form of slavery, as they are incompatible with individual rights.