The second amendment doesn't restrict its scope to "military arms" and/or arms "useful for a militia", so it's not clear why these factors are relevant in this context.
Arms are tools that can harm one or a handful of men. That includes knives, swords, axes, morning stars, and even automatic guns and grenades. Not nuclear weapons or tanks or fighter jets. Not biological weapons such as small pox. Probably tear gas grenades and smoke bombs.
Well over 90% of gun deaths in the US are the result of people getting shot with handguns.
What percentage of the gun-control argument is focused on restricting handgun ownership, and what percentage is about "assault weapons", magazine capacity limits, etc.?
The fact of the matter is that if we, as a society, really cared about both limiting gun deaths and respecting the Constitution, we'd be repealing the second amendment and replacing it with something that permits the infringement of the right to bear handguns.
Instead, you have both sides twisting each others' words, dividing the electorate over which they fear more: gun crime or devaluation of our Constitution. It's disgusting that not even the media cares to be honest about this issue.
Not to hit against the "Chinese are hard working and intelligent" meme you got going there. But you are talking about NYU... its an Arts college. A ton of Actors come out there every year. Not exactly a STEM focused group.
NYU's machine learning graduate program is highly regarded and has been ranked among the top 10 in the nation.
Don't go too fast and your suspension will be fine.
If going the speed limit results in damage to a vehicle's suspension, the speed limit is too high, or the road surface does not meet requirements. Going 25mph over speed bumps causes significant wear of a typical suspension, and I've never seen a posted speed limit under 25mph on a public road. Either your statement is false or you define travel at the speed limit to be "too fast".
Notice the difference between how Islam and Christianity are treated today in the US. Ask yourself this question: What do you think homosexual activists are not asking Muslim bakers to bake them a cake for their weddings?
You know who else they're not asking? Jews. Hindus. Buddhists. Sikhs. Taoists. Jains. Zoroastrians. Satanists. Wiccans.
Clearly it's not Muslims that are getting some special treatment here, it's Christians. But is it because of some hypothesized 'War on Christianity'?
Or is it the fact that 70.6% of the US population is some form of Christian, and another 22.8% is unaffiliated with any religion. That leaves 6.6% of the US population split across all of the world's various other religions. Indeed, only 0.9% of the US population adheres to Islam. We should expect 1 in every 111 targets of homosexual-activists-asking-people-to-bake-them-gay-cakes to be Muslim. Are you suggesting that you're aware of this many such events, as well as the religious leanings of every baker targeted this way?
Of course, these estimates assume uniform distribution of religious minorities, gay activists, and homophobic bakers. If you actually had the demographic data to not rely on such a simplistic assumption, I wouldn't be surprised if the odds of targeting a Muslim baker were even lower-still (as I suspect that religious minorities are more well-represented in areas that are more tolerant, and that gay activists would be attempting this baking schtick in areas that are less tolerant).
But this is all conjecture. I fully grant that it's entirely possible that you're right and no gay rights activists are targeting Muslim bakers because Muslim bakers inspire such a profoundly deep fear in their enemies.
Hi. Full disclosure: I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter who will be deciding between Trump and Stein in the general if Sanders isn't on the ballot. I like to think of myself as an independent, and I try very hard to remain free of any partisan bias, though I usually vote Green. You said something that I can't help but respond to.
Meanwhile Trump has broken no federal laws,
That's not really knowable, as it's a bit of a challenge to prove a negative. It would be more accurate to say that Trump has not been convicted of committing any federal crimes. However, if you've read this fantastic book, you'll agree that it's exceedingly unlikely that Trump has broken no federal laws. Perhaps one might argue that I'm being pedantic, and that you meant "big deal" federal laws, but that's not what you said, and I'm just clarifying.
and has never started a war of any kind,
While Trump has never really been in a position to start a military war, you said "war of any kind". I'd be shocked if Trump hadn't started, for example, a bidding war over a piece of real estate. Again, perhaps I'm being pedantic, but you did say "of any kind".
and actually knows how to use things like Twitter.
This, of all your points, strikes me as the most comical. Donald Trump has his email printed out and handed to him in paper form. Donald Trump dictates his replies, for an assistant to transcribe to actual email. Donald Trump might not even know how to use a computer.
Zeno's paradoxes apply to the jump from continuous to discrete mathematics.
Some of them do. Some of them don't. The "Achilles and the Tortoise" paradox doesn't. It has more to do with the convergence of the p-series (1/n^p where p>1).
Culling 0.01% of a given population is not an exercise in continuous math, it's very obviously discrete (unless you think there are infinitely many people inhabiting the earth).
It's not "very obvious" that we must round down. If we round to the nearest integer and cull less than 50% of the population per iteration, the population will never reach 0.
And people who don't understand it was tried for several thousand years. No, seriously.
By "it", I assume you mean Zeno's "Achilles and the Tortoise" paradox, in which case, no, it was not tried for several thousand years, as Achilles is a fictional character and tortoises don't live for thousands of years.
Sanders is a magic bullet that lazy Leftists want to shoot and try to change everything from the top down. Real change comes local and works its way up.
If you had been paying even the smallest bit of attention, you'd be aware that virtually every single rally that Sanders speaks at, and virtually every debate performance in which he participates, includes him prominently declaring that real change never comes from the top down but from the bottom up.
If you actually get a book and read it, then yes, it will create more interesting conversations (apart from making you smarter).
Right. And yet, when I asked you if you would answer any of my questions after I read "an economics book", you said that you would not. I don't agree that your continued refusal to answer a single question would constitute a "more interesting conversation".
btw, you said, "There are actually countless examples of money supplies increasing without any resulting inflation -- specifically, when the economy expands faster than the money supply." If you have actual examples of that (instead of just hoping there are countless), they would be really interesting time periods to examine.
Off the top of my head, QE1 comes to mind. But please, move the goalposts now.
You're not subsidizing them. Whatever taxes corporations pay ultimately get paid by you and other individual taxpayers. The only difference is that if the tax is paid by a corporation the taxpayers can't as easily see that it came out of their pockets. Corporate taxation is just a way to hide the tax bill from the people who pay it.
So why do corporations lobby so hard to prevent effective corporate taxation?
if I tell you that I've read "an economics book", would you then proceed to actually answer any the questions I've posed to you?
No, I would tell you to find a better one or read it again, because somehow you didn't learn.
So, at least you admit that this couldn't have been a productive conversation regardless of what I did. That's a relief, at least.
My goal is to have interesting conversations
If you thought this conversation was interesting (and interesting specifically because you refuse to provide any basis for the claims you make),
and you would be more interesting with more knowledge.
Indeed, specifically, if I had more knowledge about what you're trying and failing to communicate. Oh, well.
Incidentally, I did answer your question here, specifically "previously (throughout history) when the money supply was increased, it caused inflation ~1.5 years later, almost automatically."
In the likely event that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I draw your attention to the fact that I said "questions", plural, with an 's'. I've asked several questions, and while you claim to have answered one of them, I don't believe that's actually the case. At no point did I ask what the typical lag time between money expansion and inflation was, so it seems that the question you've answered wasn't actually one of the questions I asked you. Nonetheless, I do congratulate you for almost having made a single factual statement throughout the course of this dialogue. There are actually countless examples of money supplies increasing without any resulting inflation -- specifically, when the economy expands faster than the money supply -- but surely this was apparent to you from the very equation you posted, right?... Right? Though this point isn't really relevant to my initial question, nor any of the subsequent questions I've posed, I find some measure of peace in knowing that you do almost know one single thing. Keep up the good work!
What was the point of this response? I mean, if I tell you that I've read "an economics book", would you then proceed to actually answer any the questions I've posed to you? Would you suddenly start to actually provide rational arguments backing your claims? I find that unlikely, but kudos for the restrained provocation here.
I'd like to point out that you've ignored literally every question that my post contained, but you replied regardless. I take that to mean that you're more interested in talking at me than actually having a conversation. That approach doesn't seem likely to yield any meaningful insights, in my opinion.
When someone invests money (instead of sitting on it), they increase the velocity of money. When someone invests money (instead of spending it on consumer goods), they decrease the velocity of money.
No, what matters here is how quickly it changes hands to another person, not whether it changes hands in exchange for consumer goods
So, let me get this straight. If someone invests money, say in treasury bills, and as a result, it changes hands two or three times over the next year, this money has the same velocity as money that is spent at a food truck, where it will change hands two or three times over the next day? That buying bonds instead of cheeseburgers doesn't result in a net decrease in velocity of money? That notion seems to be at odds with the textbook definition of money velocity. In case you're not the academic type, and textbook definitions mean nothing to you, then let's grab an arbitrary media publication that also counters your position:
Money tends to slow down in the early stages of an economic recovery as people reduce spending, pay down debt, and increase their savings rate, and it doesn’t pick up speed until about four years into a turnaround.
(I just googled for 'investments slow velocity of money' and picked the first [arguably] reputable media outlet -- 5th hit for me)
Your model would suggest that reduced spending and increasing savings rates shouldn't decrease the velocity of money, as you disagree with my claim that consumer spending increases money velocity more than investing does. This is contrary to both intuition and economic data. Do you have any evidence to back this rather unorthodox position beyond a reference to "econ 101 lol"?
Also, now seems like a good time to point out that we've long departed from the original context, which was me asking you why you felt that stratification of wealth was insufficient to cause the economic slowdown that we're seeing. You still haven't answered that question, or any other that I've posed. In hindsight, I think I would've had better luck steering this thread in a more informative direction with mod points instead of pointed questions.
Cheers, and may we both have better luck next time.
I was hoping you could connect the dots for me explicitly
Yes, actually you want me to give you the education you would get in macro-economics 101 lol.
If you had no intent of actually presenting a logical argument, you shouldn't have wasted both of our time with your earlier post of incomplete thoughts.
So, being a rich saver doesn't necessarily reduce money velocity, and can actually increase it.
Indeed. And it doesn't necessarily increase the velocity of money, and can actually decrease it.
No, that doesn't make any sense. When someone invests money, they increase the velocity of money. That is it definitive.
You use the word "increase" here relative to nothing. This is ambiguous. Let's fix that.
When someone invests money (instead of sitting on it), they increase the velocity of money. When someone invests money (instead of spending it on consumer goods), they decrease the velocity of money. That is definitive, and it's not so vague that it's nearly meaningless.
If we are talking about decreasing the velocity of money by investing, the only thing you can possibly mean is that it decreased relatively; that is, the rich person wasn't investing as quickly as before.
So I can't possibly mean that investing has, in aggregate, a negative effect on the velocity of money relative to consumer spending (or, if you prefer, a less-positive effect than consumer spending)? Why not? Why is it that I couldn't have possibly meant that "velocity of money is faster at the poorer end of the economy than it is at the wealthier end", which is actually exactly what I said verbatim?
I had an unfortunate feeling when I was penning my original post that this wasn't likely to lead to a productive conversation. Or, in words that you might understand better, lol.
In general, people who save money don't put it in a hole in the ground or wait for it to rot, they invest it, meaning thy give the money to someone who will spend it on things.
Indeed, I could've been more careful with my words. However, in general, investment isn't considered consumption, and that's the distinction I was trying to make.
Also worth pointing out here is that the velocity of money has to do with the rate at which money is spent, and based on my understanding of these things, velocity of money is faster at the poorer end of the economy than it is at the wealthier end, so the fact that invested capital exists within the economy doesn't seem particularly insightful.
So, being a rich saver doesn't necessarily reduce money velocity, and can actually increase it.
Indeed. And it doesn't necessarily increase the velocity of money, and can actually decrease it. These lines of reasoning don't seem to lead us anywhere conclusive.
Furthermore, it may be that poor people didn't spend as much because they lost their jobs, but the increase in money supply seems large enough to cover that and still cause inflation.
Could you clarify this point? More specifically, can you clarify how this hypothesis supports your original claim? Also, how do you quantify any of this?
Furthermore, previously (throughout history) when the money supply was increased, it caused inflation ~1.5 years later, almost automatically. This relationship held true when unemployment was high or low.
It's not at all apparent to me how this is relevant to increasing stratification of wealth having a negative impact on the velocity of money.
So those are my reasons for thinking it's probably not the cause of money velocity falling.
I was hoping you could connect the dots for me explicitly. As it stands, I really don't have any better of an understanding of your point.
That doesn't seem like it is the cause of money velocity falling.
Can you clarify your basis for saying that?
It seems intuitive that the velocity of money will fall when the people that spend money don't have money and the money is held disproportionately by people who don't spend it, because in a world of poor-spenders and wealthy-savers, there isn't anyone spending. Can you explain why that reasoning is incorrect?
Giving a dollar to a homeless guy of your own will is charity. The government taking four dollars from you at gunpoint and giving the homeless dude one of them is socialism.
And nobody giving anything to the homeless guy is reality.
Slashdot Mirror
The second amendment doesn't restrict its scope to "military arms" and/or arms "useful for a militia", so it's not clear why these factors are relevant in this context.
Arms are tools that can harm one or a handful of men. That includes knives, swords, axes, morning stars, and even automatic guns and grenades. Not nuclear weapons or tanks or fighter jets. Not biological weapons such as small pox. Probably tear gas grenades and smoke bombs.
Why are nuclear arms not arms?
I submit that neither side is being honest.
Well over 90% of gun deaths in the US are the result of people getting shot with handguns.
What percentage of the gun-control argument is focused on restricting handgun ownership, and what percentage is about "assault weapons", magazine capacity limits, etc.?
The fact of the matter is that if we, as a society, really cared about both limiting gun deaths and respecting the Constitution, we'd be repealing the second amendment and replacing it with something that permits the infringement of the right to bear handguns.
Instead, you have both sides twisting each others' words, dividing the electorate over which they fear more: gun crime or devaluation of our Constitution. It's disgusting that not even the media cares to be honest about this issue.
First of all, the right to bear arms isn't restricted to the militia, and if you believe otherwise then your reading comprehension skills are lacking.
Second, the militia is already formed, and you might already be a member without realizing it.
Not to hit against the "Chinese are hard working and intelligent" meme you got going there. But you are talking about NYU... its an Arts college. A ton of Actors come out there every year. Not exactly a STEM focused group.
NYU's machine learning graduate program is highly regarded and has been ranked among the top 10 in the nation.
and the militia consisted of all free males of military age.
Consists, present tense.
Sell also: 10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
Don't go too fast and your suspension will be fine.
If going the speed limit results in damage to a vehicle's suspension, the speed limit is too high, or the road surface does not meet requirements. Going 25mph over speed bumps causes significant wear of a typical suspension, and I've never seen a posted speed limit under 25mph on a public road. Either your statement is false or you define travel at the speed limit to be "too fast".
Notice the difference between how Islam and Christianity are treated today in the US. Ask yourself this question: What do you think homosexual activists are not asking Muslim bakers to bake them a cake for their weddings?
You know who else they're not asking? Jews. Hindus. Buddhists. Sikhs. Taoists. Jains. Zoroastrians. Satanists. Wiccans.
Clearly it's not Muslims that are getting some special treatment here, it's Christians. But is it because of some hypothesized 'War on Christianity'?
Or is it the fact that 70.6% of the US population is some form of Christian, and another 22.8% is unaffiliated with any religion. That leaves 6.6% of the US population split across all of the world's various other religions. Indeed, only 0.9% of the US population adheres to Islam. We should expect 1 in every 111 targets of homosexual-activists-asking-people-to-bake-them-gay-cakes to be Muslim. Are you suggesting that you're aware of this many such events, as well as the religious leanings of every baker targeted this way?
Of course, these estimates assume uniform distribution of religious minorities, gay activists, and homophobic bakers. If you actually had the demographic data to not rely on such a simplistic assumption, I wouldn't be surprised if the odds of targeting a Muslim baker were even lower-still (as I suspect that religious minorities are more well-represented in areas that are more tolerant, and that gay activists would be attempting this baking schtick in areas that are less tolerant).
But this is all conjecture. I fully grant that it's entirely possible that you're right and no gay rights activists are targeting Muslim bakers because Muslim bakers inspire such a profoundly deep fear in their enemies.
Meanwhile Trump has broken no federal laws,
That's not really knowable, as it's a bit of a challenge to prove a negative. It would be more accurate to say that Trump has not been convicted of committing any federal crimes. However, if you've read this fantastic book, you'll agree that it's exceedingly unlikely that Trump has broken no federal laws. Perhaps one might argue that I'm being pedantic, and that you meant "big deal" federal laws, but that's not what you said, and I'm just clarifying.
and has never started a war of any kind,
While Trump has never really been in a position to start a military war, you said "war of any kind". I'd be shocked if Trump hadn't started, for example, a bidding war over a piece of real estate. Again, perhaps I'm being pedantic, but you did say "of any kind".
and actually knows how to use things like Twitter.
This, of all your points, strikes me as the most comical. Donald Trump has his email printed out and handed to him in paper form. Donald Trump dictates his replies, for an assistant to transcribe to actual email. Donald Trump might not even know how to use a computer.
Zeno's paradoxes apply to the jump from continuous to discrete mathematics.
Some of them do. Some of them don't. The "Achilles and the Tortoise" paradox doesn't. It has more to do with the convergence of the p-series (1/n^p where p>1).
Culling 0.01% of a given population is not an exercise in continuous math, it's very obviously discrete (unless you think there are infinitely many people inhabiting the earth).
It's not "very obvious" that we must round down. If we round to the nearest integer and cull less than 50% of the population per iteration, the population will never reach 0.
And people who don't understand it was tried for several thousand years. No, seriously.
By "it", I assume you mean Zeno's "Achilles and the Tortoise" paradox, in which case, no, it was not tried for several thousand years, as Achilles is a fictional character and tortoises don't live for thousands of years.
what happens if you kill the .01% and keep culling until it doesn't exist anymore?
You're left with just the people who don't understand percentages.
And people who don't understand Zeno's "Achilles and the Tortoise" paradox.
Sanders is a magic bullet that lazy Leftists want to shoot and try to change everything from the top down. Real change comes local and works its way up.
If you had been paying even the smallest bit of attention, you'd be aware that virtually every single rally that Sanders speaks at, and virtually every debate performance in which he participates, includes him prominently declaring that real change never comes from the top down but from the bottom up.
Though I disagree with the conclusions you come to, this is actually a rather clearly written and reasonable response. Kudos.
If you actually get a book and read it, then yes, it will create more interesting conversations (apart from making you smarter).
Right. And yet, when I asked you if you would answer any of my questions after I read "an economics book", you said that you would not. I don't agree that your continued refusal to answer a single question would constitute a "more interesting conversation".
btw, you said, "There are actually countless examples of money supplies increasing without any resulting inflation -- specifically, when the economy expands faster than the money supply." If you have actual examples of that (instead of just hoping there are countless), they would be really interesting time periods to examine.
Off the top of my head, QE1 comes to mind. But please, move the goalposts now.
You're not subsidizing them. Whatever taxes corporations pay ultimately get paid by you and other individual taxpayers. The only difference is that if the tax is paid by a corporation the taxpayers can't as easily see that it came out of their pockets. Corporate taxation is just a way to hide the tax bill from the people who pay it.
So why do corporations lobby so hard to prevent effective corporate taxation?
Is this another one of your posts that are intended to further your goal of having interesting conversations?
if I tell you that I've read "an economics book", would you then proceed to actually answer any the questions I've posed to you?
No, I would tell you to find a better one or read it again, because somehow you didn't learn.
So, at least you admit that this couldn't have been a productive conversation regardless of what I did. That's a relief, at least.
My goal is to have interesting conversations
If you thought this conversation was interesting (and interesting specifically because you refuse to provide any basis for the claims you make),
and you would be more interesting with more knowledge.
Indeed, specifically, if I had more knowledge about what you're trying and failing to communicate. Oh, well.
Incidentally, I did answer your question here, specifically "previously (throughout history) when the money supply was increased, it caused inflation ~1.5 years later, almost automatically."
In the likely event that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I draw your attention to the fact that I said "questions", plural, with an 's'. I've asked several questions, and while you claim to have answered one of them, I don't believe that's actually the case. At no point did I ask what the typical lag time between money expansion and inflation was, so it seems that the question you've answered wasn't actually one of the questions I asked you. Nonetheless, I do congratulate you for almost having made a single factual statement throughout the course of this dialogue. There are actually countless examples of money supplies increasing without any resulting inflation -- specifically, when the economy expands faster than the money supply -- but surely this was apparent to you from the very equation you posted, right? ... Right? Though this point isn't really relevant to my initial question, nor any of the subsequent questions I've posed, I find some measure of peace in knowing that you do almost know one single thing. Keep up the good work!
I really wish you'd read an economics book.
What was the point of this response? I mean, if I tell you that I've read "an economics book", would you then proceed to actually answer any the questions I've posed to you? Would you suddenly start to actually provide rational arguments backing your claims? I find that unlikely, but kudos for the restrained provocation here.
When someone invests money (instead of sitting on it), they increase the velocity of money. When someone invests money (instead of spending it on consumer goods), they decrease the velocity of money.
No, what matters here is how quickly it changes hands to another person, not whether it changes hands in exchange for consumer goods
So, let me get this straight. If someone invests money, say in treasury bills, and as a result, it changes hands two or three times over the next year, this money has the same velocity as money that is spent at a food truck, where it will change hands two or three times over the next day? That buying bonds instead of cheeseburgers doesn't result in a net decrease in velocity of money? That notion seems to be at odds with the textbook definition of money velocity. In case you're not the academic type, and textbook definitions mean nothing to you, then let's grab an arbitrary media publication that also counters your position:
Money tends to slow down in the early stages of an economic recovery as people reduce spending, pay down debt, and increase their savings rate, and it doesn’t pick up speed until about four years into a turnaround.
--matthew philips, associate editor at bloomberg businessweek
(I just googled for 'investments slow velocity of money' and picked the first [arguably] reputable media outlet -- 5th hit for me)
Your model would suggest that reduced spending and increasing savings rates shouldn't decrease the velocity of money, as you disagree with my claim that consumer spending increases money velocity more than investing does. This is contrary to both intuition and economic data. Do you have any evidence to back this rather unorthodox position beyond a reference to "econ 101 lol"?
Also, now seems like a good time to point out that we've long departed from the original context, which was me asking you why you felt that stratification of wealth was insufficient to cause the economic slowdown that we're seeing. You still haven't answered that question, or any other that I've posed. In hindsight, I think I would've had better luck steering this thread in a more informative direction with mod points instead of pointed questions.
Cheers, and may we both have better luck next time.
I was hoping you could connect the dots for me explicitly
Yes, actually you want me to give you the education you would get in macro-economics 101 lol.
If you had no intent of actually presenting a logical argument, you shouldn't have wasted both of our time with your earlier post of incomplete thoughts.
So, being a rich saver doesn't necessarily reduce money velocity, and can actually increase it.
Indeed. And it doesn't necessarily increase the velocity of money, and can actually decrease it.
No, that doesn't make any sense. When someone invests money, they increase the velocity of money. That is it definitive.
You use the word "increase" here relative to nothing. This is ambiguous. Let's fix that.
When someone invests money (instead of sitting on it), they increase the velocity of money. When someone invests money (instead of spending it on consumer goods), they decrease the velocity of money. That is definitive, and it's not so vague that it's nearly meaningless.
If we are talking about decreasing the velocity of money by investing, the only thing you can possibly mean is that it decreased relatively; that is, the rich person wasn't investing as quickly as before.
So I can't possibly mean that investing has, in aggregate, a negative effect on the velocity of money relative to consumer spending (or, if you prefer, a less-positive effect than consumer spending)? Why not? Why is it that I couldn't have possibly meant that "velocity of money is faster at the poorer end of the economy than it is at the wealthier end", which is actually exactly what I said verbatim?
I had an unfortunate feeling when I was penning my original post that this wasn't likely to lead to a productive conversation. Or, in words that you might understand better, lol.
In general, people who save money don't put it in a hole in the ground or wait for it to rot, they invest it, meaning thy give the money to someone who will spend it on things.
Indeed, I could've been more careful with my words. However, in general, investment isn't considered consumption, and that's the distinction I was trying to make.
Also worth pointing out here is that the velocity of money has to do with the rate at which money is spent, and based on my understanding of these things, velocity of money is faster at the poorer end of the economy than it is at the wealthier end, so the fact that invested capital exists within the economy doesn't seem particularly insightful.
So, being a rich saver doesn't necessarily reduce money velocity, and can actually increase it.
Indeed. And it doesn't necessarily increase the velocity of money, and can actually decrease it. These lines of reasoning don't seem to lead us anywhere conclusive.
Furthermore, it may be that poor people didn't spend as much because they lost their jobs, but the increase in money supply seems large enough to cover that and still cause inflation.
Could you clarify this point? More specifically, can you clarify how this hypothesis supports your original claim? Also, how do you quantify any of this?
Furthermore, previously (throughout history) when the money supply was increased, it caused inflation ~1.5 years later, almost automatically. This relationship held true when unemployment was high or low.
It's not at all apparent to me how this is relevant to increasing stratification of wealth having a negative impact on the velocity of money.
So those are my reasons for thinking it's probably not the cause of money velocity falling.
I was hoping you could connect the dots for me explicitly. As it stands, I really don't have any better of an understanding of your point.
There's nothing in there to indicate a conspiracy.
Damn, Sherlock. Impressive work! What tipped you off? Was it GP's "This is not a 'conspiracy theory'", or was it his "This also is no 'conspiracy'"?
That doesn't seem like it is the cause of money velocity falling.
Can you clarify your basis for saying that?
It seems intuitive that the velocity of money will fall when the people that spend money don't have money and the money is held disproportionately by people who don't spend it, because in a world of poor-spenders and wealthy-savers, there isn't anyone spending. Can you explain why that reasoning is incorrect?
Giving a dollar to a homeless guy of your own will is charity. The government taking four dollars from you at gunpoint and giving the homeless dude one of them is socialism.
And nobody giving anything to the homeless guy is reality.