Of course I am. You seem to be very opinionated, and resort to name-calling, rather than any type of discussion. Disagreeing with the OP, or other's commenting is fine, but your tact is very lacking. BTW, #snowflake is the most overused term of the year. Maybe @kermodebear just needs to permanently hibernate.
You flagged a comment that points out three obvious problems with OP's formulation. To stage a counterargument being that requires that OP had stated a coherent argument in the first place. How do you argue against a graph of some number going up that is not connected argumentatively to anything? How do you argue against wild evidence-free conspiracy speculation that the government is going to bring into existence a "fiat cryptocurrency", a pointless contradiction in terms? At some point OP is just babbling and you gotta stop rewarding the delusion.
I'm not really a fan of DV, but you really didn't point out shit.
"You don't understand debt and it's role in the economy. Not even a little bit. "Omg it's a large number!" What exactly do you think you're measuring? What is its causal mechanistic relation to the economy at large?"
This is laughable. These are generic questions. Answering them explains very little and answering them in the context of your comment doesn't even make a point.
"Fiat cryptocurrency" What does this even mean? Why would it be necessary when the government already totally controls the US dollar?"
Sound like a state backed crypto.
"Conspiracy theorizing about a government that leaks like a sieve and is barely functional at the strategic and tactical levels."
It sounds to me like he is theorizing about a group of people who control governments and make them purposefully bloated and "barely functional at the strategic and tactical levels.", but whatever. I'm not going to comment on this personally, but reading comprehension helps.
again, I don't really like DV, but it's completely obvious that your sentiments toward any issues related to the OP are just as wrong.
No, you aren't.
Of course I am. You seem to be very opinionated, and resort to name-calling, rather than any type of discussion. Disagreeing with the OP, or other's commenting is fine, but your tact is very lacking. BTW, #snowflake is the most overused term of the year. Maybe @kermodebear just needs to permanently hibernate.
You flagged a comment that points out three obvious problems with OP's formulation. To stage a counterargument being that requires that OP had stated a coherent argument in the first place. How do you argue against a graph of some number going up that is not connected argumentatively to anything? How do you argue against wild evidence-free conspiracy speculation that the government is going to bring into existence a "fiat cryptocurrency", a pointless contradiction in terms? At some point OP is just babbling and you gotta stop rewarding the delusion.
"three obvious problems"
I'm not really a fan of DV, but you really didn't point out shit.
"You don't understand debt and it's role in the economy. Not even a little bit. "Omg it's a large number!" What exactly do you think you're measuring? What is its causal mechanistic relation to the economy at large?"
This is laughable. These are generic questions. Answering them explains very little and answering them in the context of your comment doesn't even make a point.
"Fiat cryptocurrency" What does this even mean? Why would it be necessary when the government already totally controls the US dollar?"
Sound like a state backed crypto.
"Conspiracy theorizing about a government that leaks like a sieve and is barely functional at the strategic and tactical levels."
It sounds to me like he is theorizing about a group of people who control governments and make them purposefully bloated and "barely functional at the strategic and tactical levels.", but whatever. I'm not going to comment on this personally, but reading comprehension helps.
again, I don't really like DV, but it's completely obvious that your sentiments toward any issues related to the OP are just as wrong.
It's obvious that you aren't really willing to engage intellectually on this at all.
Ok.