I didn't call you "ignorant". I was commenting on your knowledge of economics. And clearly my argument was not running low on fuel since I subsequently refuted your premises directly. Care to address that?
Here's your statement again:
Define 'temporarily'. Because this isn't some one-time occurrence here. Dollars are continuously flowing in both directions. We buy tomatoes from Mexico by transferring those dollars to a Mexican bank which issues pesos to the farmer. And that bank has instant access to those dollars which they use to invest in US securities and commodities. No lag. And this gets repeated every day. And our trade deficit with Mexico far exceeds any foreign aid we send their way.
Your left-wing Brookings Institute link is dead. So, I'm guessing that you didn't really check that "mainstream source" after all but simply cut and paste from whatever left-wing site you found it on. Same goes for your left-wing IMF link.
I mean seriously. You didn't even bother clicking on the links yourself before cutting and pasting them? Wow. Talk about intellectual laziness,.
On “ignorant” vs. knowledge of economics — Calling an argument “ignorant” is a personal attack, not a critique of ideas. I am happy to debate economics, but when the conversation veers into name-calling, it signals an attempt to discredit the person rather than the premise. I will not engage with insults as the basis of discussion.
On my statements about foreign aid and contracting the money supply — You quoted me correctly: I initially phrased it poorly by saying “we usually contract the money supply via foreign aid.” I immediately clarified: I do not claim foreign aid contracts the money supply. My point, consistent with Griffin and mainstream analysis, is that sending dollars abroad can temporarily shift inflationary pressures by letting those dollars circulate overseas before returning as purchases of U.S. goods, services, or Treasuries.
On “temporarily”: In this context, it means that dollars leaving the domestic economy alter the timing and location of inflationary pressure, not that they vanish or remove inflation permanently.
You are correct that global dollars are continuously moving in both directions through trade, investment, and financial flows. This reinforces, rather than contradicts, the mechanism: circulating dollars abroad shift inflationary pressure, even if only briefly, before returning to the U.S. economy.
On trade versus foreign aid — Yes, trade flows dwarf foreign aid, and the example with Mexico illustrates the same principle at scale: dollars leave the U.S., influence foreign markets, then return via investment or purchase of U.S. assets. My discussion of foreign aid was meant as one illustrative mechanism, not the only one. The underlying concept applies broadly across global dollar flows.
On the sources I cited. — You are correct that the Brookings and IMF links I provided earlier were outdated, broken, or paid content. That does not mean I didn’t consult mainstream sources. Before writing my article, I reviewed multiple credible publications and research, including Federal Reserve and BIS studies, IMF working papers, and peer-reviewed articles on global dollar flows and inflation mechanics. I apologize that the links I shared were faulty — the evidence remains valid, even if the hyperlink formatting failed.
I will continue to engage with anyone addressing ideas seriously, but I won’t debate participants who repeatedly rely on insults rather than engaging with the arguments.
Topic: THE GREAT AMERICAN PRICE TRAP: Riding the Inflation Beast From DC to the Last Mortgage Denied at Daw (Read 463 times)
