As I've repeatedly demonstrated, your example used three FIXED numbers.....CP holds all ELSE, not EVERYTHING, constant.....the entire point is to stress a VARIABLE...It was an example of what it means to analyze a single variable. You're stupid as fuck. How do you not grasp that?
Skylar keeps thinking when I said "all else held equal," it meant there are no other variables. If you hacks had gone to college, you'd have had to have come across that concept before. It's basic to any analysis discussion.
Ceteris paribus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How does assuming the value of the single variable "test" it?
That is Tautologicus paribus...
I went to perfectly good college, and spent more hours delving into macro econ over the past 6 months than you have in your entire 22 years on the planet.
OK, I'm done now with Skylar and you for this discussion. You are just too stupid. I've explained to you like three times the concept of ceteris paribus. I also provided a link to the description of it so you could read that. I said I was explaining that CONCEPT to the retarded Mr. Skylar.
How the two of you can't grasp that is beyond me. But I'm not wasting my time on this anymore. I'm not explaining this simple concept to you again
5 years of Latin.....Economics at undergraduate and graduate levels.....
What do you think you can tell me about ceteris paribus?
Apparently what it means since I explained it to you at least three times and you still didn't get it. There are many factors to recessions and currency devaluations. That doesn't mean you can't consider one factor without including all the rest. That's what "all else held equal" or "cetris paribus" means.
Why didn't you explain to Skylar what it meant instead of jumping in and defending his position that you can't look at one factor without considering all the rest if you knew what it meant?
I don't know else to explain it. You don't know what cetris paribus means. If you really studied Latin, I'd demand your money back. I said I was explaining it to Skylar. And you keep saying OMG, you made up those numbers! No shit, that's what I said. It was to explain the concept
The actions of the Fed have not resulted in the Hyperinflation scenario predicted by economic naifs because they have occurred at the "zero lower bound". Instead of circulating, and being subject to velocity, this money is going to Excess Reserves at the Fed.....the practical effect (and I suspect, original intent) has been to shore up bank capital ravaged by the Wages of Supply
Side Idiocy.
Strawman, I said nothing about "hyperinflation." I didn't even say printing money was the only problem for the recession, I said it didn't cause it, it just made it worse.
But you simpletons keep coming back with no, printing money doesn't devalue currency! It's a stupid argument and prima facie wrong. You just have to think about it. You printed money, of course that is going to have a devaluing effect on the currency.
Prima facie is Latin, sorry, I know you don't know what it means