"We haven't been able to enjoy the benefits of capitalism because we haven't had capitalism"
That's the same argument communists use.
"No! You come back, Nitwit, with the numbers, and they better be real, unlike the other garbage you post."
The "numbers" are freely available. They derive from a measure used prior to QE, so that any suggested bias becomes difficult. You forgot that you scanner the internet looking for a measure of inflation that showed an increase, and found one. Unfortunately, this one in many had already been discredited, as correctly posted some time ago, which I know you remember but chose to ignore.
Also, it is impossible to explain reality to a conspiracy theorist.
To continue to ignore the fact that all (except one; penalty of death for debasing the gold or silver coins....) of the Act's sections have been superseded, even when being told several times, is not very smart. Hence, you've created a "pot calling the kettle black" scenario. Well done.
The attacks on the Cook paper don’t honestly discuss the results. Rather, the attacks attempt to discredit a paper that provides a simple communication to the public. This easy to understand paper has struck a nerve with climate deniers.
Although Cook’s results are consistent with previous and subsequent research, they were met with hysterical resistance
Cook et al reviewed the various criticisms of their paper and noticed some common threads amongst them. The commonalities were consistent with a 2009 paper that discussed five characteristics common to scientific denialism:
1) Cherry picking;
2) Fake experts;
3) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliver; and
5) Conspiracy theories;
Particular examples of each of these characteristics in the criticisms of the Cook paper were referred to in an article by in The Guardian titled “97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism”.
“Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? “
You know the answer this question as evident later in your post, yet you suggest Kerry got it from a tweet, which highlights your dishonest ways.
“Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” Incorrect. The only basis for this premise is a conspiracy theory.
“The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. “ Incorrect. You’ve been told what a scientific consensus, yet you continue posting this lie, which is very dishonest.
Your dishonesty continues by ignoring more information known to have been provided to you.
A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). Doran (2009) also supports the “97% of scientists” concept.
I'll address the Cook paper separately. Suffice to say, you’re hoping your audience cannot distinguish between “expressing an opinion” and presenting data with conclusions that support man-made climate change.
I noted that you didn’t comment on that post on the massive study by Yale University’s Dr. Justin Farrell finding a connection between corporate funding and messages that are likely to polarize and cast doubt on the issue of climate change.
As we await the outcome of the New York state attorney general investigation on ExxonMobil knowing about climate change decades ago, then purposely lying and misleading the public and investors, we no doubt expect you to continue posting such lies.
You big climate dummy.
....and finally out comes the conspiracy theory. Because that is all the climate deniers have. This conspiracy theory has grown to enormous proportions, now encompassing the judicial system.
If it has been falsified, the current measure must still be implemented through a conspiracy theory This means you are wrong when you say "no conspiracy theory here".
You're very confused.
"most people have been taught that gold is not money."
All people are taught that gold is not money. The exceptions only arise through incorrect teaching.
Ahh..the conspiracy theory again. You grab for it all the time.
The NeoLibertarians here have never managed to falsify the current measure of inflation. Instead, they claim the measure is a fabrication.
Come back when inflation is measured by grocery-shopping mothers.
".... the dollar is legally defined in terms of grains of silver."
Incorrect. Many Acts have passed relating to the amount and type of metal in, and equivalent to, money, There is currently no legal definition of the dollar.
Man-made global warming is a simple concept, supported by substantial evidence, culminating in scientific consensus.
For right-wingers, this concept is either very difficult to comprehend or is a truth that needs suppressing.
Outside the context of man-made global warming (MMGW), which is the realm you're living in, it means nothing.
Inside the of reality of climate change, it supports the overwhelming consensus of MMGW.
Still waiting for Fed-induce inflation?
How long has it been since the deadline for such an occurrence past?
If inflation get to problematic levels in 20 years time, which would be about 25 years from QE, will you attribute it to the Fed?
I think you will.
Clarification: "Gold is definitely a powerful form of money"
In this context, gold is used to barter and is not a form of money.
Your erroneous assumption invalidates your latter assessment.
I'm sure you wish my posts were useless. But alas, my post highlighted the vacuousness of your post and the irrationality of your subsequent reply, strongly suggesting people should not bother reading your posts.
A noun defining something that is indisputably the case, preceded directly by an adjective assigning the noun as erroneous?
Only a right-winger.