$2000 Individual Payments - where does this end?

[scottish]

Anybody have thoughts on how much inflation (including none or even deflation) that this expansive monetary policy is going to cause down the road?

I've done my best to catch up on modern monetary theory, but I always struggle with economics.    As I understand it MMT seems to say something like:   "Expansive monetary policy shouldn't cause inflation unless the economy is very strong."

I struggle with this too. To me, it feels like since 2008 the federal government has just been pumping money into the system in one way or another. Bailouts, low interest rates, bond buying, and now direct payments. Seemingly without ever really pulling back during the times that the economy appears good.

Political policy is such that once its on the menu it never comes off.    As far as inflation goes, theory goes that we should be seeing a lot of it in the near future but the problem is that inflation is not measured at all correctly anymore and hasn't factored in the nature of the speed of technological advancements and manufacture and import of overseas goods.  As those countries continue to advance their costs to us will rise thereby causing inflation for us.

That's interesting.   In addition to the monetary policy we have innovation driving inflation down, and increasing standards of living in the developing world driving inflation up. 
 I haven't come across that point before.

There's that expression economists love --  "ceteris paribus" -- which is definitely not the case here.

[GuitarStv]

It's a lot more absurd it's applied equally at the federal level regardless of where you live than anything else.

Why would that be absurd? Housing is consumption like anything else, and consumers make their decisions on what to buy based on a million factors.

It's not like anything else, because a $50k car is a $50k car no matter where you live. A $200k house in one place might be a $800k house someplace else.

No, the two houses are not comparable. You pay for their respective desirability.

Nobody tricked anyone in living in a given market. It's consumption like anything else.

Saying 'nobody tricked anyone into living in a given market' is an odd statement.

An awful lot of people move to the place they live because of employment.  If there weren't significantly better job opportunities (that paid a lot more) in New York than the boonies, it would be a lot cheaper finding houses in the city.  Given that this pandemic has seriously screwed a large number of people out of their employment it makes a lot of sense to meet needs based upon the costs of the location you live in.
 Otherwise you're effectively encouraging folks to move out of and weaken the economic and productive powerhouses of the country.

[Cranky]

You could certainly argue that the economy as a whole would benefit from spreading people out. I do think that the current crisis has shown some real structural weaknesses.

Economists are not generally troubled by moderate inflation - that’s a sign of an expanding economy. We’ve had painfully low inflation since 2008.

[American GenX]

True inflation is too high!

I've always noticed my personal inflation is higher than the official government figures, which are setup to downplay real inflation.  My health insurance premiums went up 55% this year with higher out of pocket costs to boot!  My property taxes and homeowners insurance having been going up 6 or 7% every year, which are some of my my biggest bills, while my home's true market value has been stagnant for many years.  Then I'm shocked every trip to the grocery store with the increased prices.  Now the Fed says they are on a mission to get inflation up but keeping interest rates low, so those secured investments like CDs and MM are paying less than 1%, before taxes, and are losing value even with the government 2% goal, let alone much higher actual inflation.

[tooqk4u22]

It's a lot more absurd it's applied equally at the federal level regardless of where you live than anything else.

Why would that be absurd? Housing is consumption like anything else, and consumers make their decisions on what to buy based on a million factors.

It's not like anything else, because a $50k car is a $50k car no matter where you live. A $200k house in one place might be a $800k house someplace else.

No, the two houses are not comparable. You pay for their respective desirability.

Nobody tricked anyone in living in a given market. It's consumption like anything else.

Saying 'nobody tricked anyone into living in a given market' is an odd statement.

An awful lot of people move to the place they live because of employment. If there weren't significantly better job opportunities (that paid a lot more) in New York than the boonies, it would be a lot cheaper finding houses in the city.  Given that this pandemic has seriously screwed a large number of people out of their employment it makes a lot of sense to meet needs based upon the costs of the location you live in.
 Otherwise you're effectively encouraging folks to move out of and weaken the economic and productive powerhouses of the country.

The areas in question with absurd housing costs shouldn't dictate the larger populations of elsewhere - sometimes its not fair.  Even still, the median HH income of san fran is about a $100K and Manhattan is $109k so the $75 individual limit and $150 joint limits would still seem to be on the high side for even those absurdly priced areas.  Also, all those people who made mid to high six figures or millions should have saved a penny or two. 

Not too mention, people moved there for the opportunity driving up prices, so a modern day (decades) gold rush but when the inverse is true and the gold runs out people move elsewhere, why is that not the case anymore.  And when times were tough in the past, people moved back in with family, got roommates, got help from local charities/churches, moved, whatever - why does the government have to support peoples above average status quo. 

[tooqk4u22]

True inflation is too high!

I've always noticed my personal inflation is higher than the official government figures, which are setup to downplay real inflation.  My health insurance premiums went up 55% this year with higher out of pocket costs to boot!  My property taxes and homeowners insurance having been going up 6 or 7% every year, which are some of my my biggest bills, while my home's true market value has been stagnant for many years.  Then I'm shocked every trip to the grocery store with the increased prices.  Now the Fed says they are on a mission to get inflation up but keeping interest rates low, so those secured investments like CDs and MM are paying less than 1%, before taxes, and are losing value even with the government 2% goal, let alone much higher actual inflation.

You must be in NJ, higher taxes, lower growth, relatively stagnant housing prices (due entirely to the aforementioned).

[JLee]

It's a lot more absurd it's applied equally at the federal level regardless of where you live than anything else.

Why would that be absurd? Housing is consumption like anything else, and consumers make their decisions on what to buy based on a million factors.

It's not like anything else, because a $50k car is a $50k car no matter where you live. A $200k house in one place might be a $800k house someplace else.

No, the two houses are not comparable. You pay for their respective desirability.

Nobody tricked anyone in living in a given market. It's consumption like anything else.

Saying 'nobody tricked anyone into living in a given market' is an odd statement.

An awful lot of people move to the place they live because of employment. If there weren't significantly better job opportunities (that paid a lot more) in New York than the boonies, it would be a lot cheaper finding houses in the city.  Given that this pandemic has seriously screwed a large number of people out of their employment it makes a lot of sense to meet needs based upon the costs of the location you live in.
 Otherwise you're effectively encouraging folks to move out of and weaken the economic and productive powerhouses of the country.

The areas in question with absurd housing costs shouldn't dictate the larger populations of elsewhere - sometimes its not fair.  Even still, the median HH income of san fran is about a $100K and Manhattan is $109k so the $75 individual limit and $150 joint limits would still seem to be on the high side for even those absurdly priced areas.  Also, all those people who made mid to high six figures or millions should have saved a penny or two. 

Not too mention, people moved there for the opportunity driving up prices, so a modern day (decades) gold rush but when the inverse is true and the gold runs out people move elsewhere, why is that not the case anymore.  And when times were tough in the past, people moved back in with family, got roommates, got help from local charities/churches, moved, whatever - why does the government have to support peoples above average status quo.

Remind me when the last time was we had a pandemic with economic disruption on this scale?

[scottish]

It's a lot more absurd it's applied equally at the federal level regardless of where you live than anything else.

Why would that be absurd? Housing is consumption like anything else, and consumers make their decisions on what to buy based on a million factors.

It's not like anything else, because a $50k car is a $50k car no matter where you live. A $200k house in one place might be a $800k house someplace else.

No, the two houses are not comparable. You pay for their respective desirability.

Nobody tricked anyone in living in a given market. It's consumption like anything else.

Saying 'nobody tricked anyone into living in a given market' is an odd statement.

An awful lot of people move to the place they live because of employment. If there weren't significantly better job opportunities (that paid a lot more) in New York than the boonies, it would be a lot cheaper finding houses in the city.  Given that this pandemic has seriously screwed a large number of people out of their employment it makes a lot of sense to meet needs based upon the costs of the location you live in.
 Otherwise you're effectively encouraging folks to move out of and weaken the economic and productive powerhouses of the country.

The areas in question with absurd housing costs shouldn't dictate the larger populations of elsewhere - sometimes its not fair.  Even still, the median HH income of san fran is about a $100K and Manhattan is $109k so the $75 individual limit and $150 joint limits would still seem to be on the high side for even those absurdly priced areas.  Also, all those people who made mid to high six figures or millions should have saved a penny or two. 

Not too mention, people moved there for the opportunity driving up prices, so a modern day (decades) gold rush but when the inverse is true and the gold runs out people move elsewhere, why is that not the case anymore.  And when times were tough in the past, people moved back in with family, got roommates, got help from local charities/churches, moved, whatever - why does the government have to support peoples above average status quo.

Remind me when the last time was we had a pandemic with economic disruption on this scale?

It was 1918 to 1920.

[WhiteTrashCash]

The last time this situation happened tens of millions of people died. Charging the credit card a bit is preferable to death on that kind of scale. At least that's what I think because I'm Christian.

[GuitarStv]

The last time this situation happened tens of millions of people died. Charging the credit card a bit is preferable to death on that kind of scale. At least that's what I think because I'm Christian.

Given the number of stupid things I've seen members of Christian churches do in the US during this pandemic, I'm not sure that your reasoning holds all that well.

[OtherJen]

The last time this situation happened tens of millions of people died. Charging the credit card a bit is preferable to death on that kind of scale. At least that's what I think because I'm Christian.

Given the number of stupid things I've seen members of Christian churches do in the US during this pandemic, I'm not sure that your reasoning holds all that well.

This. WTC, you seem like a good person and I suspect that you would be whether you were Christian or not. Religious affiliation does not equal morality.

Trump, Pence, and Jerry Falwell Jr. also claim the label of "Christian."

[PDXTabs]

Targeted support is what is needed.

Yup. I'm going to have to agree mainly because of all of the parents that have quit their jobs to take care of school age children. Because they quit they don't qualify for unemployment. I don't understand why this is isn't all over the news and the source of protests. I don't understand why both sides of the dysfunctional political divide aren't all over this. Meanwhile, my pay hasn't changed and I get a stimulus check.

Also, the Fed needs to stand down, we don't need continuation of bond buying and ultra low rates, which given my assets would hurt me but this shit needs to stop. 

IDK about that. One of the benefits of low rates is that the Treasury can borrow cheap right now.

[WhiteTrashCash]

The last time this situation happened tens of millions of people died. Charging the credit card a bit is preferable to death on that kind of scale. At least that's what I think because I'm Christian.

Given the number of stupid things I've seen members of Christian churches do in the US during this pandemic, I'm not sure that your reasoning holds all that well.

This. WTC, you seem like a good person and I suspect that you would be whether you were Christian or not. Religious affiliation does not equal morality.

Trump, Pence, and Jerry Falwell Jr. also claim the label of "Christian."

Some people call themselves cowboys because they own a ten-gallon hat and take their fashion pick-ups to watch the rodeo. They couldn't rope a calf or ride a horse to save their lives. Some people call themselves Christian without actually having any of the values or behaviors that would actually make them Christian. That's just how life goes.

[sherr]

Senator Rand Paul had a good take on this, calling out both sides for spending money we don't have.

@Michael in ABQ Rand Paul also votes to drastically cut the government's income from tax revenue at the exact same time as he votes to increase the government's spending, and the Republican-run government of the last four years has led to the largest government debt increase in any four-year period in history, in spite of being handed a raging economy by Obama. And they were on track for that before COVID hit.

Rand Paul, like all Republican deficit hawks, is a hypocrite and a liar. They have absolutely no problem running up the deficit to insane levels when Republicans are in charge, as they have done literally every time they've been in power in my lifetime. He's only starting to pretend to care now because Biden will be the president for the next four years and he wants to sabotage Biden's economy and hurt Democrats' electoral chances in the upcoming elections.

[American GenX]

Yup. I'm going to have to agree mainly because of all of the parents that have quit their jobs to take care of school age children. Because they quit they don't qualify for unemployment. I don't understand why this is isn't all over the news and the source of protests. I don't understand why both sides of the dysfunctional political divide aren't all over this. Meanwhile, my pay hasn't changed and I get a stimulus check.

I thought that was standard for unemployment, that you generally couldn't just quit and get it.  That seems reasonable to me.  Being a parent should be irrelevant - that's just a lifestyle choice that people made that they are already getting extra tax benefits and stimulus dollars for having made.

[PDXTabs]

Yup. I'm going to have to agree mainly because of all of the parents that have quit their jobs to take care of school age children. Because they quit they don't qualify for unemployment. I don't understand why this is isn't all over the news and the source of protests. I don't understand why both sides of the dysfunctional political divide aren't all over this. Meanwhile, my pay hasn't changed and I get a stimulus check.

I thought that was standard for unemployment, that you generally couldn't just quit and get it.  That seems reasonable to me.  Being a parent should be irrelevant - that's just a lifestyle choice that people made that they are already getting extra tax benefits and stimulus dollars for having made.

I mean, you can have that opinion, but I won't vote for you. In normal times you can send your kids to public school and pay for before and/or aftercare if you want/need to work. Now many governors have made that illegal. It's also illegal to just leave an eight year old at home all day. Not once did this happen in my parents' or my grandparents' generations. I don't believe that this is what parents signed up for, and having kids is absolutely necessary for society at large to continue to function.

[PKFFW]

Some people call themselves cowboys because they own a ten-gallon hat and take their fashion pick-ups to watch the rodeo. They couldn't rope a calf or ride a horse to save their lives. Some people call themselves Christian without actually having any of the values or behaviors that would actually make them Christian. That's just how life goes.

I assume that's because, just like that bloke who isn't a true Scotsman, the people in your example are not true Cowboys or Christians, right?

[OtherJen]

Yup. I'm going to have to agree mainly because of all of the parents that have quit their jobs to take care of school age children. Because they quit they don't qualify for unemployment. I don't understand why this is isn't all over the news and the source of protests. I don't understand why both sides of the dysfunctional political divide aren't all over this. Meanwhile, my pay hasn't changed and I get a stimulus check.

I thought that was standard for unemployment, that you generally couldn't just quit and get it.  That seems reasonable to me.  Being a parent should be irrelevant - that's just a lifestyle choice that people made that they are already getting extra tax benefits and stimulus dollars for having made.

I mean, you can have that opinion, but I won't vote for you. In normal times you can send your kids to public school and pay for before and/or aftercare if you want/need to work. Now many governors have made that illegal. It's also illegal to just leave an eight year old at home all day. Not once did this happen in my parents' or my grandparents' generations. I don't believe that this is what parents signed up for, and having kids is absolutely necessary for society at large to continue to function.

This. What exactly are people supposed to do if elementary schools are closed, daycare isn't available, and work from home isn't an option? Someone has to watch the kids, and being forced into resigning to do so is not equivalent to quitting because you don't feel like working. These are not normal times.

[mathlete]

Senator Rand Paul had a good take on this, calling out both sides for spending money we don't have.

@Michael in ABQ Rand Paul also votes to drastically cut the government's income from tax revenue at the exact same time as he votes to increase the government's spending, and the Republican-run government of the last four years has led to the largest government debt increase in any four-year period in history, in spite of being handed a raging economy by Obama. And they were on track for that before COVID hit.

Rand Paul, like all Republican deficit hawks, is a hypocrite and a liar. They have absolutely no problem running up the deficit to insane levels when Republicans are in charge, as they have done literally every time they've been in power in my lifetime. He's only starting to pretend to care now because Biden will be the president for the next four years and he wants to sabotage Biden's economy and hurt Democrats' electoral chances in the upcoming elections.

Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I watched the RNC this year. Rand Paul congratulated the president for the TCJA being "revenue negative", which is a fancy way of saying that we went into debt to give out tax cuts, the lion's share of which went to corporations who bought back shares. Share buybacks decrease shares outstanding. Holding market cap constant, this means shareholders see an increase in share value. Rich people own most of the equity in the US.

So Rand Paul, at the RNC, said it was good that we went into debt to give money to rich people. Unfortunately, that goes over the heads of 90% of the country. That's depressing.

[Chris Pascale]

But really it should just end at UBI.

Let Switzerland or Norway or some other rich country do UBI first. The USA is simply too divided and too poor to do it. If it works in a rich European country for at least 10 years or so, then they can roll it out to the whole of the EU. Then probably Japan, Australia/NZ, maybe even China. Only after all of that will the USA could be willing to adopt it. It needs to work elsewhere before the USA will sign up.

Kuwait does UBI, and so does the state of Alaska.

[mm1970]

Yup. I'm going to have to agree mainly because of all of the parents that have quit their jobs to take care of school age children. Because they quit they don't qualify for unemployment. I don't understand why this is isn't all over the news and the source of protests. I don't understand why both sides of the dysfunctional political divide aren't all over this. Meanwhile, my pay hasn't changed and I get a stimulus check.

I thought that was standard for unemployment, that you generally couldn't just quit and get it.  That seems reasonable to me.  Being a parent should be irrelevant - that's just a lifestyle choice that people made that they are already getting extra tax benefits and stimulus dollars for having made.

I mean, you can have that opinion, but I won't vote for you. In normal times you can send your kids to public school and pay for before and/or aftercare if you want/need to work. Now many governors have made that illegal. It's also illegal to just leave an eight year old at home all day. Not once did this happen in my parents' or my grandparents' generations. I don't believe that this is what parents signed up for, and having kids is absolutely necessary for society at large to continue to function.

Yep.  And plenty of other developed countries have figured this out already.  It's much better for society too!

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

My parents both worked throughout my childhood and from the age of 7 I stayed home alone after school from 3.30 to 6.00 every day. It was fun. My parents would leave some microwaved snacks out, I'd eat them and read or watch TV. :-) Or when I was 8 or 9 I'd ride a bike with the neighbourhood kids. Not saying every child should be left home alone, but our nanny state standards these days are kind of depressing. Children used to walk themselves home from school and look after each other (while the parents were out) all the time. Particularly now when it's so easy to borrow books or buy a cheap e-book, it can't not be an option for everyone.

[American GenX]

My parents both worked throughout my childhood and from the age of 7 I stayed home alone after school from 3.30 to 6.00 every day. It was fun. My parents would leave some microwaved snacks out, I'd eat them and read or watch TV. :-) Or when I was 8 or 9 I'd ride a bike with the neighbourhood kids. Not saying every child should be left home alone, but our nanny state standards these days are kind of depressing. Children used to walk themselves home from school and look after each other (while the parents were out) all the time. Particularly now when it's so easy to borrow books or buy a cheap e-book, it can't not be an option for everyone.

True, and people shouldn't expect a bailout from other taxpayers just because the going gets rough.  We have to draw the line somewhere.  People would just abuse the program when they don't really need it.  These $2400 stimulus checks to families on top of the previous larger stimulus checks last year are already excessive.  I also don't like anything that disincentivises anyone from working just because they can pull in generous unemployment checks at taxpayer expense when those unemployed workers can earn more sitting at home watching TV.

[PDXTabs]

My parents both worked throughout my childhood and from the age of 7 I stayed home alone after school from 3.30 to 6.00 every day. It was fun. My parents would leave some microwaved snacks out, I'd eat them and read or watch TV. :-) Or when I was 8 or 9 I'd ride a bike with the neighbourhood kids. Not saying every child should be left home alone, but our nanny state standards these days are kind of depressing. Children used to walk themselves home from school and look after each other (while the parents were out) all the time. Particularly now when it's so easy to borrow books or buy a cheap e-book, it can't not be an option for everyone.

True, and people shouldn't expect a bailout from other taxpayers just because the going gets rough.  We have to draw the line somewhere.  People would just abuse the program when they don't really need it.  These $2400 stimulus checks to families on top of the previous larger stimulus checks last year are already excessive.  I also don't like anything that disincentivises anyone from working just because they can pull in generous unemployment checks at taxpayer expense when those unemployed workers can earn more sitting at home watching TV.

You think that a single parent with two kids can live on $2400 for eight months? That's just... crazy.

[PDXTabs]

My parents both worked throughout my childhood and from the age of 7 I stayed home alone after school from 3.30 to 6.00 every day. It was fun. My parents would leave some microwaved snacks out, I'd eat them and read or watch TV. :-) Or when I was 8 or 9 I'd ride a bike with the neighbourhood kids. Not saying every child should be left home alone, but our nanny state standards these days are kind of depressing. Children used to walk themselves home from school and look after each other (while the parents were out) all the time. Particularly now when it's so easy to borrow books or buy a cheap e-book, it can't not be an option for everyone.

I agree, but I think that you are also just proving my point.

[katsiki]

My parents both worked throughout my childhood and from the age of 7 I stayed home alone after school from 3.30 to 6.00 every day. It was fun. My parents would leave some microwaved snacks out, I'd eat them and read or watch TV. :-) Or when I was 8 or 9 I'd ride a bike with the neighbourhood kids. Not saying every child should be left home alone, but our nanny state standards these days are kind of depressing. Children used to walk themselves home from school and look after each other (while the parents were out) all the time. Particularly now when it's so easy to borrow books or buy a cheap e-book, it can't not be an option for everyone.

How did you not die?!?!   :)

[six-car-habit]

My parents both worked throughout my childhood and from the age of 7 I stayed home alone after school from 3.30 to 6.00 every day. It was fun. My parents would leave some microwaved snacks out, I'd eat them and read or watch TV. :-) Or when I was 8 or 9 I'd ride a bike with the neighbourhood kids. Not saying every child should be left home alone, but our nanny state standards these days are kind of depressing. Children used to walk themselves home from school and look after each other (while the parents were out) all the time. Particularly now when it's so easy to borrow books or buy a cheap e-book, it can't not be an option for everyone.

True, and people shouldn't expect a bailout from other taxpayers just because the going gets rough.  We have to draw the line somewhere.  People would just abuse the program when they don't really need it.  These $2400 stimulus checks to families on top of the previous larger stimulus checks last year are already excessive.  I also don't like anything that disincentivises anyone from working just because they can pull in generous unemployment checks at taxpayer expense when those unemployed workers can earn more sitting at home watching TV.

 AMGENX - Do you have any anecdotal stories you'd like to share, with specifics, of people you know who are happy to be unemployed, not knowing when the gov't money spigot is going to be turned off ?? 
  I can think of some situations where this is plausible, ummn maybe 3 single folks sharing a small rental home, in the 20's age bracket, who'd rather be playing video games, and drive Grandmas hand-me-down Buick down to the quickie mart for smokes , a bag of chips , and some more energy drinks. 
   But for a 30 / 40 / 50 yr old with a mortgage -or- a personal belief they should pay rent on time , and children ??   Yes, those are the stories i hope you'll share with us...


 Staying home from 3:30-6pm as a kid is way different than entertaining yourself from 8am till 6pm.  Bloop, I'll have to guess you grew up in the suburbs.  What about the kids who live out in the country , who can't run next door to nice neighbor Mrs Smiths house if there is a problem that needs adult attention ?   In my state the youngest age you can leave a child home unattended is 10.   As a lawyer, would you advise your clients and acquaintances to leave their 6 and 7 year old kids unsupervised if they lived in my state ?    I understand you may think it's a nanny state law, and there are no boogeymen driving around looking to snatch kids -- but would you advise clients to willfully break the law because you don't agree with it ?

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I understand you may think it's a nanny state law, and there are no boogeymen driving around looking to snatch kids -- but would you advise clients to willfully break the law because you don't agree with it ?

It's their choice what to do and me being a lawyer doesn't give me any moral or legal authority to dictate what others do or don't do. I never tell anyone to break the law but I also don't tell anyone to follow any laws except as far as it relates to their specific case before me.

In my state it's an offence to leave a child unsupervised for more than a reasonable time, but the definition of the word reasonable is up to interpretation. Strangely, there's no age limit too - technically any dependant under 18 would be considered a "child", though I'm sure the younger the child, the fewer circumstances, and less duration, would be seen as reasonable.

What about the kids who live out in the country , who can't run next door to nice neighbor Mrs Smiths house if there is a problem that needs adult attention ?

Each situation has to be treated on its own merits.

[WhiteTrashCash]

The Georgia election is today and it will determine if there is another $2000 check (Democrats win both seats) or if that's the end of assistance to people during the pandemic (Republicans win one or both seats). It's weird to think of it that way, but that's the decision before voters in Georgia. More assistance or they feel they are fine without it. And they decide this for the entire nation.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Some people call themselves cowboys because they own a ten-gallon hat and take their fashion pick-ups to watch the rodeo. They couldn't rope a calf or ride a horse to save their lives. Some people call themselves Christian without actually having any of the values or behaviors that would actually make them Christian. That's just how life goes.

I assume that's because, just like that bloke who isn't a true Scotsman, the people in your example are not true Cowboys or Christians, right?

The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is not actually a fallacy. It's just truth. If you don't meet the requirements to have a title, then you don't get the title. That's how it always works in real life.

[Kris]

Some people call themselves cowboys because they own a ten-gallon hat and take their fashion pick-ups to watch the rodeo. They couldn't rope a calf or ride a horse to save their lives. Some people call themselves Christian without actually having any of the values or behaviors that would actually make them Christian. That's just how life goes.

I assume that's because, just like that bloke who isn't a true Scotsman, the people in your example are not true Cowboys or Christians, right?

The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is not actually a fallacy. It's just truth. If you don't meet the requirements to have a title, then you don't get the title. That's how it always works in real life.

It’s... I mean... I think you’re misunderstanding the fallacy.

Also, Christian is not a title. It’s not like “doctor.” There aren’t graduation requirements.

[American GenX]

My parents both worked throughout my childhood and from the age of 7 I stayed home alone after school from 3.30 to 6.00 every day. It was fun. My parents would leave some microwaved snacks out, I'd eat them and read or watch TV. :-) Or when I was 8 or 9 I'd ride a bike with the neighbourhood kids. Not saying every child should be left home alone, but our nanny state standards these days are kind of depressing. Children used to walk themselves home from school and look after each other (while the parents were out) all the time. Particularly now when it's so easy to borrow books or buy a cheap e-book, it can't not be an option for everyone.

True, and people shouldn't expect a bailout from other taxpayers just because the going gets rough.  We have to draw the line somewhere.  People would just abuse the program when they don't really need it.  These $2400 stimulus checks to families on top of the previous larger stimulus checks last year are already excessive.  I also don't like anything that disincentivises anyone from working just because they can pull in generous unemployment checks at taxpayer expense when those unemployed workers can earn more sitting at home watching TV.

You think that a single parent with two kids can live on $2400 for eight months? That's just... crazy.

LOL.   You're suggesting other taxpayers should fully support a family of 3 for eight months?   The stimulus is just extra cash - that's not part of unemployment.  That's why I say it is excessive.  It's in excess.  I support programs like unemployment, Medicaid, and such as they are, but we have to draw the line somewhere like finally stopping with these stimulus checks, additional unemployment checks on top of what is already provided, and paying off other people's college debt. for example.

[techwiz]

Some people call themselves cowboys because they own a ten-gallon hat and take their fashion pick-ups to watch the rodeo. They couldn't rope a calf or ride a horse to save their lives. Some people call themselves Christian without actually having any of the values or behaviors that would actually make them Christian. That's just how life goes.

I assume that's because, just like that bloke who isn't a true Scotsman, the people in your example are not true Cowboys or Christians, right?

The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is not actually a fallacy. It's just truth. If you don't meet the requirements to have a title, then you don't get the title. That's how it always works in real life.

It’s... I mean... I think you’re misunderstanding the fallacy.

Also, Christian is not a title. It’s not like “doctor.” There aren’t graduation requirements.

I had to look this up as I was thinking of the "True Scotsman" term used for a man wearing a kilt without undergarments. Not the same thing as the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Just Joe]

Maybe stimulus is really a gift to the business owners where the money will be spent...

[WhiteTrashCash]

Some people call themselves cowboys because they own a ten-gallon hat and take their fashion pick-ups to watch the rodeo. They couldn't rope a calf or ride a horse to save their lives. Some people call themselves Christian without actually having any of the values or behaviors that would actually make them Christian. That's just how life goes.

I assume that's because, just like that bloke who isn't a true Scotsman, the people in your example are not true Cowboys or Christians, right?

The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is not actually a fallacy. It's just truth. If you don't meet the requirements to have a title, then you don't get the title. That's how it always works in real life.

It’s... I mean... I think you’re misunderstanding the fallacy.

Also, Christian is not a title. It’s not like “doctor.” There aren’t graduation requirements.

It’s a religion. If you don’t have the beliefs of the religion, then you aren’t actually a follower of it. This is basic stuff.

[sherr]

Some people call themselves cowboys because they own a ten-gallon hat and take their fashion pick-ups to watch the rodeo. They couldn't rope a calf or ride a horse to save their lives. Some people call themselves Christian without actually having any of the values or behaviors that would actually make them Christian. That's just how life goes.

I assume that's because, just like that bloke who isn't a true Scotsman, the people in your example are not true Cowboys or Christians, right?

The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is not actually a fallacy. It's just truth. If you don't meet the requirements to have a title, then you don't get the title. That's how it always works in real life.

It’s... I mean... I think you’re misunderstanding the fallacy.

Also, Christian is not a title. It’s not like “doctor.” There aren’t graduation requirements.

It’s a religion. If you don’t have the beliefs of the religion, then you aren’t actually a follower of it. This is basic stuff.

This whole conversation thread is all an irrelevant distraction, but I'll respond anyway.

The point of the No True Scotsman fallacy is that there is no arbiter over what "the beliefs of the religion" are. Except theoretically God I guess, but you cannot claim to know his opinion with any authority. The Bible? Every single denomination interprets it differently and there is no one who is in a position of authority to say who is right and who is wrong, and who is wrong enough to not count as Christian at all. You are free to have your own opinions on the subject (and I certainly have mine), but we are not authoritative in declaring that other people are not Christian. Ditto for any other religion.

Who is a true Scotsman or who is a true Christian is open to interpretation, because "true" is a meaningless weasel word inserted to make the statement unfalsifiable.

There are tons of people throughout Christendom who declare that X, Y or Z are not "true Christians", and none of them are authoritative. The declaration that X is not a "true Christian", while perhaps true in some unknowable sense, is never provable, and is always simply a dodge to avoid being associated with people you don't like or to convince people of something that you can't actually logically prove. It is never useful as part of an actual logical argument because your opinion is not authoritative. It is therefore only useful as a fallacious rhetorical device.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Some people call themselves cowboys because they own a ten-gallon hat and take their fashion pick-ups to watch the rodeo. They couldn't rope a calf or ride a horse to save their lives. Some people call themselves Christian without actually having any of the values or behaviors that would actually make them Christian. That's just how life goes.

I assume that's because, just like that bloke who isn't a true Scotsman, the people in your example are not true Cowboys or Christians, right?

The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is not actually a fallacy. It's just truth. If you don't meet the requirements to have a title, then you don't get the title. That's how it always works in real life.

It’s... I mean... I think you’re misunderstanding the fallacy.

Also, Christian is not a title. It’s not like “doctor.” There aren’t graduation requirements.

It’s a religion. If you don’t have the beliefs of the religion, then you aren’t actually a follower of it. This is basic stuff.

This whole conversation thread is all an irrelevant distraction, but I'll respond anyway.

The point of the No True Scotsman fallacy is that there is no arbiter over what "the beliefs of the religion" are. Except theoretically God I guess, but you cannot claim to know his opinion with any authority. The Bible? Every single denomination interprets it differently and there is no one who is in a position of authority to say who is right and who is wrong, and who is wrong enough to not count as Christian at all. You are free to have your own opinions on the subject, but you are not authoritative in declaring that other people are not Christian. Ditto for any other religion.

Unlike, ironically, the question on who is a Scotsman or not, which does have an arbiter in the form of the Government of Scotland that can authoritatively determine who is in fact Scottish (if we're talking about citizenship, not ancestry).

There are tons of people throughout Christendom who declare that X, Y or Z are not "true Christians", and none of them are authoritative. The declaration that X is not a "true Christian", while perhaps true in some unknowable objective sense, is not useful, and is always simply a dodge to avoid being associated with people you don't like. It is never useful in convincing anyone else though, because your opinion is not authoritative.

You are very wrong. There is a right way to be a Christian and a wrong way. For example, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians even though they say they are because they don’t believe in the Trinity. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you either think that A.) Jesus is not God or B.) Jesus is a god other than God. Either one of those beliefs means you aren’t Christian. There are lots of rules for being a Christian which are in the Holy Bible and all Christians share those beliefs. There are other beliefs associated with Christianity which are different in different denominations, but the basic set of beliefs are identical for all Christians.

[PDXTabs]

LOL.   You're suggesting other taxpayers should fully support a family of 3 for eight months?   The stimulus is just extra cash - that's not part of unemployment.  That's why I say it is excessive.  It's in excess.  I support programs like unemployment, Medicaid, and such as they are, but we have to draw the line somewhere like finally stopping with these stimulus checks, additional unemployment checks on top of what is already provided, and paying off other people's college debt. for example.

But the family in question didn't get any unemployment, that was my point. Also, I do believe that you are conflating stimulus and welfare* in your post. Stimulus is the money you spend to prevent GDP contraction and currency deflation. In my original post I was agreeing with the OP about how the stimulus could have been much better targeted to keep it out of my savings account by giving it to out of work parents who could no longer practically work.

* - unemployment is actually neither (or perhaps both), that's insurance

[sherr]

You are very wrong. There is a right way to be a Christian and a wrong way. For example, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians even though they say they are because they don’t believe in the Trinity. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you either think that A.) Jesus is not God or B.) Jesus is a god other than God. Either one of those beliefs means you aren’t Christian. There are lots of rules for being a Christian which are in the Holy Bible and all Christians share those beliefs. There are other beliefs associated with Christianity which are different in different denominations, but the basic set of beliefs are identical for all Christians.

Sure, you're free to have that opinion. But you're not authoritative so your opinion carries no weight in a logical argument.

[GuitarStv]

Some people call themselves cowboys because they own a ten-gallon hat and take their fashion pick-ups to watch the rodeo. They couldn't rope a calf or ride a horse to save their lives. Some people call themselves Christian without actually having any of the values or behaviors that would actually make them Christian. That's just how life goes.

I assume that's because, just like that bloke who isn't a true Scotsman, the people in your example are not true Cowboys or Christians, right?

The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is not actually a fallacy. It's just truth. If you don't meet the requirements to have a title, then you don't get the title. That's how it always works in real life.

It’s... I mean... I think you’re misunderstanding the fallacy.

Also, Christian is not a title. It’s not like “doctor.” There aren’t graduation requirements.

It’s a religion. If you don’t have the beliefs of the religion, then you aren’t actually a follower of it. This is basic stuff.

This whole conversation thread is all an irrelevant distraction, but I'll respond anyway.

The point of the No True Scotsman fallacy is that there is no arbiter over what "the beliefs of the religion" are. Except theoretically God I guess, but you cannot claim to know his opinion with any authority. The Bible? Every single denomination interprets it differently and there is no one who is in a position of authority to say who is right and who is wrong, and who is wrong enough to not count as Christian at all. You are free to have your own opinions on the subject, but you are not authoritative in declaring that other people are not Christian. Ditto for any other religion.

Unlike, ironically, the question on who is a Scotsman or not, which does have an arbiter in the form of the Government of Scotland that can authoritatively determine who is in fact Scottish (if we're talking about citizenship, not ancestry).

There are tons of people throughout Christendom who declare that X, Y or Z are not "true Christians", and none of them are authoritative. The declaration that X is not a "true Christian", while perhaps true in some unknowable objective sense, is not useful, and is always simply a dodge to avoid being associated with people you don't like. It is never useful in convincing anyone else though, because your opinion is not authoritative.

You are very wrong. There is a right way to be a Christian and a wrong way. For example, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians even though they say they are because they don’t believe in the Trinity. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you either think that A.) Jesus is not God or B.) Jesus is a god other than God. Either one of those beliefs means you aren’t Christian. There are lots of rules for being a Christian which are in the Holy Bible and all Christians share those beliefs. There are other beliefs associated with Christianity which are different in different denominations, but the basic set of beliefs are identical for all Christians.

I'd personally argue that a Christian is a follower of Christ.  The idea that Christ was the son of God was one believed by the original apostles and early Christians.  They didn't believe that he was God though.  That idea came about many years after he died (and was codified in the Athanasian Creed in the 1600s).  Are you really trying argue that none of the apostles were Christian?

Given that the entirety of religion is made up nonsense, it's always so weird to see the hatred/disgust that virtually identical sects with extremely similar practices and beliefs feel for one another and what imaginary lines are drawn to justify it.  Especially when you start looking at how those beliefs have undergone massive changes over time.

[dividendman]

To get back on topic, I think Jesus would give $2000 to everyone.

[PDXTabs]

You are very wrong. There is a right way to be a Christian and a wrong way. For example, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians even though they say they are because they don’t believe in the Trinity. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you either think that A.) Jesus is not God or B.) Jesus is a god other than God. Either one of those beliefs means you aren’t Christian. There are lots of rules for being a Christian which are in the Holy Bible and all Christians share those beliefs. There are other beliefs associated with Christianity which are different in different denominations, but the basic set of beliefs are identical for all Christians.

Says who? Because Merriam Webster says that it is any "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." I have seen it written elsewhere that you need believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for people, but I don't know why you would need to believe in the Holy Ghost or why you would get to be the decider.

To get back on topic, I think Jesus would give $2000 to everyone.

I think that he would be full on Jubilee.

[WhiteTrashCash]

You are very wrong. There is a right way to be a Christian and a wrong way. For example, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians even though they say they are because they don’t believe in the Trinity. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you either think that A.) Jesus is not God or B.) Jesus is a god other than God. Either one of those beliefs means you aren’t Christian. There are lots of rules for being a Christian which are in the Holy Bible and all Christians share those beliefs. There are other beliefs associated with Christianity which are different in different denominations, but the basic set of beliefs are identical for all Christians.

Says who? Because Merriam Webster says that it is any "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." I have seen it written elsewhere that you need believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for people, but I don't know why you would need to believe in the Holy Ghost or why you would get to be the decider.

Merriam-Webster also says that “figuratively” is a synonym for “literally”, so I would take their word with a grain of salt. It does sort of exemplify the weird reasoning people use now — the post-modern philosophy — which says that things are whatever we say they are because we say so. For two thousand years, it’s been known that you aren’t a Christian if you don’t believe Jesus is God. Lots of people think Jesus was a nice man, and whatever, that’s good for them, but they aren’t Christians. There are actual rules for things and things are just what we think because we say so. Trump — and his followers — have trouble with this too.

[sherr]

Merriam-Webster also says that “figuratively” is a synonym for “literally”, so I would take their word with a grain of salt.

"Literally" is a synonym for "figuratively", because that's how people use it and how their listeners understand it. That's a lot more of an authoritative fact than declaring that only Trinitarians are True Christians. But you're correct, there is no arbiter for language either, not even dictionaries, it just sort of evolves on its own and the dictionaries try to keep up. Dictionaries are describing how words are understood, not prescribing how they must be used. So it's quite possible for me to weird language by verbing nouns. There's no one who can declare me wrong for doing so, it's just a question of whether or not people understand me. The world is much more gray than grade-school English teachers would have you believe.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Merriam-Webster also says that “figuratively” is a synonym for “literally”, so I would take their word with a grain of salt.

"Literally" is a synonym for "figuratively", because that's how people use it and how their listeners understand it. That's a lot more of an authoritative fact than declaring that only Trinitarians are True Christians. But you're correct, there is no arbiter for language either, not even dictionaries, it just sort of evolves on its own and the dictionaries try to keep up. Dictionaries are describing how words are understood, not prescribing how they must be used. So it's quite possible for me to weird language by verbing nouns. There's no one who can declare me wrong for doing so, it's just a question of whether or not people understand me. The world is much more gray than grade-school English teachers would have you believe.

If we are really going to get completely post-modern and reject reason as a way of determining what is true and false, then Trump is correct and he won the election because he feels strongly that he did and a lot of other people are saying it too. Life gets really chaotic when you think in those kinds of terms, though.

[sherr]

Merriam-Webster also says that “figuratively” is a synonym for “literally”, so I would take their word with a grain of salt.

"Literally" is a synonym for "figuratively", because that's how people use it and how their listeners understand it. That's a lot more of an authoritative fact than declaring that only Trinitarians are True Christians. But you're correct, there is no arbiter for language either, not even dictionaries, it just sort of evolves on its own and the dictionaries try to keep up. Dictionaries are describing how words are understood, not prescribing how they must be used. So it's quite possible for me to weird language by verbing nouns. There's no one who can declare me wrong for doing so, it's just a question of whether or not people understand me. The world is much more gray than grade-school English teachers would have you believe.

If we are really going to get completely post-modern and reject reason as a way of determining what is true and false, then Trump is correct and he won the election because he feels strongly that he did and a lot of other people are saying it too. Life gets really chaotic when you think in those kinds of terms, though.

I'm not rejecting reason. "'Literally' is a synonym for 'figuratively', because that's how people use it and how their listeners understand it" is a logical, reasoned argument. I'm simply rejecting your supposed ability to declare that your opinions are facts. Between the two of us you're the one who's claiming that things they feel strongly are therefore true.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Merriam-Webster also says that “figuratively” is a synonym for “literally”, so I would take their word with a grain of salt.

"Literally" is a synonym for "figuratively", because that's how people use it and how their listeners understand it. That's a lot more of an authoritative fact than declaring that only Trinitarians are True Christians. But you're correct, there is no arbiter for language either, not even dictionaries, it just sort of evolves on its own and the dictionaries try to keep up. Dictionaries are describing how words are understood, not prescribing how they must be used. So it's quite possible for me to weird language by verbing nouns. There's no one who can declare me wrong for doing so, it's just a question of whether or not people understand me. The world is much more gray than grade-school English teachers would have you believe.

If we are really going to get completely post-modern and reject reason as a way of determining what is true and false, then Trump is correct and he won the election because he feels strongly that he did and a lot of other people are saying it too. Life gets really chaotic when you think in those kinds of terms, though.

I'm not rejecting reason. "'Literally' is a synonym for 'figuratively', because that's how people use it and how their listeners understand it" is a logical, reasoned argument. I'm simply rejecting your supposed ability to declare that your opinions are facts. Between the two of us you're the one who's claiming that things they feel strongly are therefore true.

No, I'm not expressing "my" opinions. I'm expressing a fact for billions of Christians which has existed for two thousand years and you can check all the scholarship on this to check that it's true. The scholarship goes back at least 1800 years (or more if you want to check with Paul's Epistles.) You can get upset with me about it, but I'm just explaining a fact about the religion.

And you'll never convince me that "literally" means the same thing as "figuratively" just because uneducated people use it that way. How can you run a society if you just declare anything to be anything you say it is? It's really chaotic. I don't agree with Trump at all about that.

[sherr]

No, I'm not expressing "my" opinions. I'm expressing a fact for billions of Christians which has existed for two thousand years and you can check all the scholarship on this to check that it's true. The scholarship goes back at least 1800 years (or more if you want to check with Paul's Epistles.) You can get upset with me about it, but I'm just explaining a fact about the religion.

And you'll never convince me that "literally" means the same thing as "figuratively" just because uneducated people use it that way. How can you run a society if you just declare anything to be anything you say it is? It's really chaotic. I don't agree with Trump at all about that.

Well this is obviously unproductive so this will be my last reply.

I'm not upset about anything, nor am I picking any particular bones about your theology. I don't care about your theology at all, one way or another. I'm simply pointing out that you are not the authoritative arbiter on what "Christianity" is. Neither is the Pope, nor the Council of Nicaea, nor the Apostle's Creed, nor anything else. Not because I necessarily have any particular problem with you or the Pope or the Council of Nicaea or the Apostle's Creed, but simply because they don't have the authority to make that declaration. There is no one in this world who does.

I'll say it one more time, you are the only one here who is insisting that things are true just because you say it is.

[frugalnacho]

This entire thread literally made my head explode.

Also Mormons very much do consider themselves christians.  I know whitetrashcash vehemently disagrees, but that's how the mormons described themselves, and I'm not sure why WTC has any more authority than 16 Million mormons. 

[sherr]

This entire thread literally made my head explode.

I figuratively LOLed out loud.