you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]boston_blackie 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Nixon Ends Convertibility of U.S. Dollars to Gold and Announces Wage/Price Controls

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold-convertibility-ends

[–][deleted]  (12 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    Your conclusion seems to contradict the text that you have provided.

    [–][deleted]  (10 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

      I think you're full of shit and trying to prove your pre-determined conclusion.

      [–][deleted]  (8 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        I don't need an explanation. You have already explained that deregulation leads to lower prices and more competition. Sorry if I was too mean.*

        [–][deleted]  (4 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          common knowledge

          I don't believe in economics, or non-local government. However, common knowledge is simply a belief that's common in the herd. The relationship of common knowledge to actual reality is typically tenuous, at best.

          [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          none of this is common knowledge. these are complex economic and political systems. I will retire from this thread and attempt to learn from the OP post.

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          I've not mentioned anything surprising or unusual about the causes of increasing income inequality since 1971. I merely repeat what economiists have noted. It's not difficult to understand.

          No it isn't, and I wasn't saying your claim was unusual...again...I was saying you TLDR'd a block of a text in a way that directly contradicted the source you were citing, which is frankly unacceptable. How should I have addressed this more constructively? It appears that you either did not read the text you cited, or were making a very bad faith argument, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed the former