Block Reward changing to 25 BTC in November-December 2012

[labestiol]

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
Albert A. Bartlett, Ph.D
Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder

I discovered this guy watching this video :
http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html

It is a MUST watch !

[1715160759]

1715160759

[1715160759]

1715160759

[1715160759]

1715160759

[1715160759]

1715160759

[1715160759]

1715160759

[1715160759]

1715160759

[hazek]

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
Albert A. Bartlett, Ph.D
Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder

I discovered this guy watching this video :
http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html

It is a MUST watch !

I strongly agree! That lecture is one of the most important arithmetic lesson one could possibly learn from, especially when you daily hear our overlord saying their target inflation is 2% annually.

[Technomage]

Great post by miscreanity. You are a valuable asset to this community.

[SgtSpike]

I don't understand. If 50 BTC are produced every 10 minutes, and world GDP growth is 3% per year, bitcoins would, eventually, become deflationary. The first years they'd be inflationary, up until the point where the number of coin generated in a year equals 3% of the current supply. At this point it'd be stagnant because it matches GDP growth. After this, the supply would grow at less than 3% per year (the rate decreasing year by year) and it'd be deflationary. Right?

Yeah, that's true...

Bitcoin's decimal expansion is effectively inflationary. That inflation is limited by the number of decimals it can be expanded to, which is currently 8. The system itself does not determine the extent of decimal expansion; that results from market forces. As Bitcoin gains wider adoption its value will rise, prices will fall, and the decimal will periodically be moved to the next point.

Precisely, except under this type of an inflationary system ALL the savers benefit, while under a fiat currency central bank's inflation those who get the new money first(government, government contractors, big banks and big crops) benefit and the small savers get punished. This is THE problem humanity has today.

But, you forget about lost coins and GDP, which will make Bitcoin deflationary.  Technically, it is not inflationary or deflationary, but when you account for lost coins, as well as GDP growth, it will end up acting like a deflationary currency.

A deflationary currency encourages too much saving, and an inflationary currency encourages too much debt/spending.

I'm fascinated how people so easily make bullshit bogus statements like this probably merely repeating something they heard or read somewhere from someone else. How the fk do you know what a deflationary currency encourages? Did you do an experiment to confirm your hypothesis? And if not, why the pretense this is a fact of reality. Pisses me off.

In the history of this planet we haven't had a deflationary currency. And I'm referring to the currency supply deflation not the aftereffect of price deflation. Even fking gold is inflationary. And you little fart want to pretend and make statements of how the reality really works and what kind of currency would be best??!

It's simple logic.  Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow?  I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people.  This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods.  We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency.

Also, leave the personal insults out.  It reflects poorly on your character, and doesn't really compel me to respond to your inquiries.

[SgtSpike]

In the history of this planet we haven't had a deflationary currency. And I'm referring to the currency supply deflation not the aftereffect of price deflation. Even fking gold is inflationary. And you little fart want to pretend and make statements of how the reality really works and what kind of currency would be best??!

A true deflationary currency would be one in which the money supply contracts, so it would have to start at an arbitrary amount and then basically self-destruct (inflation self-destructs by dilution/overabundance). As an example, food would fit this definition because it perishes over time.

Yes, gold is inflationary, as is Bitcoin. The distinction is that Bitcoin approaches an absolute limit whereas discovery of a large supply or mining gold on the moon could continue expansion of its unit base indefinitely.

I think I see what you're trying to get at: gold and Bitcoin inflate less than overall economic expansion grows. So it isn't the currency deflating, there is simply a divergence between the growth rates. In effect, that simulates a deflationary environment - the presentation is the same, but the reasons are different.

This chart illustrates that sequence of events:

Think of Altcoin as the translation layer between a consistent measure of value (Bitcoin or gold), and the fluctuating quantity and quality of goods and services in an entire economy. It doesn't matter whether there are 10,000 potatos or 1,000,000 - the price for them will still be the same in Altcoins. The more potatos there are, the cheaper they become in Bitcoins. Assume that potatoes are the only goods in our example economy, a maximum for Bitcoin of 1,000 Satoshis and an initial 10:1 Altcoin/Bitcoin to potato ratio:

Annual Potato Yield	>Total Altcoins	>Value in Altcoins	>Total Bitcoins	>Value in Bitcoins
100	1,000	10	1,000	10
1,000	10,000	10	1,000	1
10,000,000	100,000,000	10	1,000	0.0001

Can you imagine if potato crop yields fell significantly one year and people saw the US dollar-denominated price of potatoes go from $1/ea to $10,000?

Now under a fixed 2% annual rate rise for Altcoins, with the same starting assumptions as above:

Annual Potato Yield	>Total Altcoins	>Value in Altcoins	>Total Bitcoins	>Value in Bitcoins
100	1,000	10	1,000	10
1,000	1,020	1.02	1,000	1
10,000,000	1,040	0.000104	1,000	0.0001

The same problem arises as that with Bitcoin. A fixed absolute value increase would obviously be even more divergent. You can see from these tables that it is impossible for Bitcoin to serve both purposes alone. A second, more flexible Bitcoin system is necessary in the vein of Altcoin.

A significant change occurs when market forces shift the Bitcoin decimal. Let's take another look:

Annual Potato Yield	>Total Bitcoins	>Value in Bitcoins	>Decimal Shift	Value of 1 Bitcoin
100	1,000	10.000	none to hold 10.0	1.0
1,000	1,000	1.0000	>1 to hold 10.0	1.0
10,000,000	1,000	0.0001	>5 to hold 10.0	1.0

The end result is that anyone holding 1 Bitcoin at the beginning would still have 1 Bitcoin, only now smaller fractions of a Bitcoin are needed to conduct everyday transactions. The currency remains functional in regard to price stability while existing units are not devalued, meaning that savers neither harm the system nor are harmed by it.

In a fiat system, savers are actually the enemy because stockpiling puts strain on price stability and if the stored fiat is ever disbursed in size, it can cause sizeable price disruption. For an example, imagine that a major foreign holder of US debt (bonds and the like) decided to sell; several billion dollars flooding back into the system without an immediate, commensurate balance of trade reaction would be the same as printing that money into existence. Prices of goods and services would be affected within a year, potentially causing further chain reactions that could destabilize the entire system.

What is the universal response to an inflatable money supply that is experiencing excessive demand (i.e. a liquidity crisis)? Inflation is the only answer in the end. By inflating, the decimal point is moved to the left instead of the right. We've seen this with numerous national currencies which introduce a 'new' X fiat currency, just like the old one only several zeros have been lopped off. A 100.00 denomination becomes 1.00 for a left shift of 2 places. That dilutes existing units (savings) in order to maintain price stability.

Using a money supply that is essentially fixed, and is indefinitely divisible, completely negates that problem. Gold is the same, but can only do well to certain point because it is physical, offering practical usage down to about a gram denomination. While it is theoretically possible to use gold held in custodianship to lower the limits on practical usage, that returns to issues of trust regarding financial institutions.

Bitcoin also virtually eliminates the management concerns involved with trust (there will still be weak points, notably the developers, hashing power concentration and cryptographic security). The only real questions that remain (aside from those mentioned) are of eventual widespread adoption and whether the decimal expansion will be sufficiently smoothed by market forces. Therefore, a complementary inflationary currency might not be necessary.

It's hard for those with minimal understanding of their own financial system to grasp these distinctions, and even harder for those that have made it their livelihood and gospel in understanding the existing paradigm. All economic arguments against Bitcoin so far have been bunk. The shift in recognition will be a gradually accelerating process, much like this excellent analysis.

Ok, I can agree with you on the technical definition of deflation, and that Bitcoin doesn't fit that technical definition.  But, my point is, Bitcoin is (or would be) deflationary according to currency available per capita, or currency available per GDP.  Effective deflation is what matters.

[hazek]

It's simple logic.  Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow?  I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people.  This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods.  We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency.

You are right this definitely is a simple and also fallacious logic. The Bitcoin economy has so far shown the complete opposite of your simple logic!

Also, leave the personal insults out.  It reflects poorly on your character, and doesn't really compel me to respond to your inquiries.

I get furious with people who just spout BS they merely heard being spouted by some other human being having zero evidence and facts to back it up. And it's this kind of irresponsible lack of critical thinking and lack of respect for the scientific method that has the whole world convinced of soo many ridiculous beliefs such as religions, statism and the con that is fiat money and central/fractional reserve banking.

[hazek]

Effective deflation is what matters.

Matters to who? You?

In case you're interest, to me it's irrelevant. What actually really matters to me is that my purchasing power isn't being stolen by some third party counterfeiting the currency.

[SgtSpike]

It's simple logic.  Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow?  I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people.  This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods.  We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency.

You are right this definitely is a simple and also fallacious logic. The Bitcoin economy has so far shown the complete opposite of your simple logic!

Also, leave the personal insults out.  It reflects poorly on your character, and doesn't really compel me to respond to your inquiries.

I get furious with people who just spout BS they merely heard being spouted by some other human being having zero evidence and facts to back it up. And it's this kind of irresponsible lack of critical thinking and lack of respect for the scientific method that has the whole world convinced of soo many ridiculous beliefs such as religions, statism and the con that is fiat money and central/fractional reserve banking.

The Bitcoin economy is laughable.  It has zero correlation with the real world economy.  The Bitcoin economy will show growth or shrinkage according to whether more or fewer people use it - it has nothing to do with GDP or monetary velocity, etc.  The real effects of a deflationary money supply (which Bitcoin isn't yet, since new coins are still being generated) wouldn't be seen unless Bitcoin saw massive adoption.

I am not "spouting BS I merely heard being spouted by some other human being."  Seriously, if you don't agree with my ideas, that's fine.  But don't say that I am spouting off what I heard from someone else, when I am not.  Don't say that I am not critically thinking, when I am critically thinking.  Don't say I lack respect for the scientific method, when I do have respect for the scientific method.

If you want to refute what I say, then refute it.  But don't say I am wrong just because you think I am wrong, without any sort of logic or evidence to back it up.

Effective deflation is what matters.

Matters to who? You?

In case you're interest, to me it's irrelevant. What actually really matters to me is that my purchasing power isn't being stolen by some third party counterfeiting the currency.

Matters with regards to economics.  If you have too much saving in an economy, you stifle economic growth.  And a deflationary currency encourages too much saving.  If you want to have a national economy with very little investment in new ideas because of lack of incentive to make investments, then that's fine.  All I am saying is, compared to the economy we have today (which is actually over-invested because of inflation), we would see far less innovation and progress if a deflationary currency was used.

[dree12]

It's simple logic.  Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow?  I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people.  This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods.  We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency.

You are right this definitely is a simple and also fallacious logic. The Bitcoin economy has so far shown the complete opposite of your simple logic!

The Bitcoin economy has thus far been hyperinflationary by a money supply perspective.

In game theory, one defines utility as the value of an asset such that two assets worth the same as one have the sum of utility same as the utility of the one. Under this simplified definition, money has current utility equal to the greatest utility that can be purchased with it. If deflationary economies are common, this does encourage postponing postponable spends.

It's simple logic.  Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow?  I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people.  This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods.  We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency.

Economically, a reduced demand leads not to higher prices but to lower ones. This pseudo-deflationary-spiral (or QDS, as I like to refer to it as) increases the purchasing power of currency.

[SgtSpike]

It's simple logic.  Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow?  I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people.  This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods.  We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency.

Economically, a reduced demand leads not to higher prices but to lower ones. This pseudo-deflationary-spiral (or QDS, as I like to refer to it as) increases the purchasing power of currency.

Yeah, I agree.  Perhaps I extrapolated too far on that statement.  I was thinking along the lines of a deflationary currency causing lower demand, companies producing fewer goods in response to that lowered demand, companies having poorer economies of scale, and thus, having to charge higher prices for the same goods.  But you're right, you also have the effect of lower demand lowering prices, just from a supply/demand curve standpoint.  And that effect is probably greater than the effect of lowered economies of scale.

[hazek]

If you want to refute what I say, then refute it.  But don't say I am wrong just because you think I am wrong, without any sort of logic or evidence to back it up.

I'm sorry but seeing how it is you who is making these wild claims about how currencies work and what kind of currency Bitcoin is and how it's all going to work out or not, the burden of proof for all these wild claims lies solely with you. I don't have to prove a damn thing. I'm perfectly comfortable pointing out that you're merely making statements without any evidence pretending as if you're teaching us some sort of facts of reality.

[hazek]

There you go again..  

Matters with regards to economics.  If you have too much saving in an economy, you stifle economic growth.  And a deflationary currency encourages too much saving.  If you want to have a national economy with very little investment in new ideas because of lack of incentive to make investments, then that's fine.  All I am saying is, compared to the economy we have today (which is actually over-invested because of inflation), we would see far less innovation and progress if a deflationary currency was used.

SAYS WHO?! HOW DO YOU KNOW ALL THIS?! FKING STOP SPREADING BS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Did you know that there's an entire economic school of thought out there that completely DISAGREES with every single word you just wrote there? Stop making bogus statements and start supporting them with evidence and proof otherwise please, just STFU.


You know people, according to SgtSpike savings are BAD! So you better not save, you better not think of using money that has properties which will cause it to appreciate cause you're going to destroy the economy. Unless of course you're saving in a depreciating currency, then by all means, save away!

What utter nonsense.

[Qoheleth]

It's simple logic.  Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow?  I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people.  This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods.  We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency.

You are right this definitely is a simple and also fallacious logic. The Bitcoin economy has so far shown the complete opposite of your simple logic!

Hmm. The problem is that at the moment, Bitcoin's exchange rate is highly variable. Nobody can actually tell whether the money supply is growing faster or slower than the economy. If they did, you wouldn't have arguments on this very board about what the "fundamental" value of 1BTC is.

In real-world economies, you don't normally see that kind of volatility. I suspect that this has to do with a combination of (1) real-world economies' sizes being easier to determine, thanks to taxes and import/export laws and so forth, and (2) the immaturity of the economy making it harder to derive a "fundamental" BTC price from the market price (the significant percentage of Mt. Gox volume coming from Bitcoinica speaks to the degree to which speculation is ruling the exchanges right now).

But the upshot is that whether or not people would choose to save instead of spend if they know their money will appreciate, they can't know that in Bitcoin today. Their money may or may not appreciate on the short-term scale. Maybe tomorrow the price of Bitcoin goes up to $10! Maybe it goes back down to $3! There's no confidence in Bitcoin prices except in those people who "believe it will succeed", who are looking 10 years down the line (too far for Keynesian theories of hoarding to apply, whether or not Keynesian economics accurately describes reality). So the current economic growth doesn't really work as a counterexample when talking about how the Bitcoin economy will behave when it "matures".

It'd be better to talk about the examples of emerging economies in the real world. But I'm not familiar enough with the topic to provide good examples there.

[SgtSpike]

If you want to refute what I say, then refute it.  But don't say I am wrong just because you think I am wrong, without any sort of logic or evidence to back it up.

I'm sorry but seeing how it is you who is making these wild claims about how currencies work and what kind of currency Bitcoin is and how it's all going to work out or not, the burden of proof for all these wild claims lies solely with you. I don't have to prove a damn thing. I'm perfectly comfortable pointing out that you're merely making statements without any evidence pretending as if you're teaching us some sort of facts of reality.

It's basic economics.  Read any economics textbook, and it'll show you the same thing.

There you go again..  

Matters with regards to economics.  If you have too much saving in an economy, you stifle economic growth.  And a deflationary currency encourages too much saving.  If you want to have a national economy with very little investment in new ideas because of lack of incentive to make investments, then that's fine.  All I am saying is, compared to the economy we have today (which is actually over-invested because of inflation), we would see far less innovation and progress if a deflationary currency was used.

SAYS WHO?! HOW DO YOU KNOW ALL THIS?! FKING STOP SPREADING BS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Did you know that there's an entire economic school of thought out there that completely DISAGREES with every single word you just wrote there? Stop making bogus statements and start supporting them with evidence and proof otherwise please, just STFU.


You know people, according to SgtSpike savings are BAD! So you better not save, you better not think of using money that has properties which will cause it to appreciate cause you're going to destroy the economy. Unless of course you're saving in a depreciating currency, then by all means, save away!

What utter nonsense.

Again, it's basic economics.  I learned this stuff in Economics 101.  Maybe you didn't take such a class.  It's like 1+1 = 2.  Anyone with common sense would agree that that formula is true, just like anyone with common sense would agree that a smarter investment with regards to a deflationary economy is an investment in the currency itself.

But, since you insist on me citing sources...

"Moreover: deflation results in gross imbalances in the economy: delayed consumption and capital investment and an increasing debt burden (in real, deflation-adjusted terms) adversely affect manufacturing, services, and employment. Government finances worsen as unemployment rises and business bankruptcies soar. Sovereign debt (government bonds) - another form of highly-liquid, "safe" investment - is thus rendered more default-prone in times of deflation."
http://www.globalpolitician.com/print.asp?id=6556

"When deflation occurs, the prices of goods and services are decreasing, so the primary goal for investors during deflationary times is to hold cash since its relative value is increasing.  One approach to holding cash includes placing money in money market funds or short term treasury bonds."
http://www.money-zine.com/Investing/Investing/Inflation-and-Deflation/

"3. May decrease investment and lending if cash holdings are seen as preferable (aka hoarding)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation

"Here, the risk-adjusted return of assets becomes negative in nature, thereby encouraging the purchasers and investors to gather money, rather than investing it in solid and assured securities. This leads to the formation of a theoretical condition known as Liquidity Trap. Liquidity trap is regarded as a critical condition as it stagnates the economy, where the nominal rate of interest becomes zero or close to zero."
http://www.economywatch.com/inflation/deflation/effects.html

Satisfied now?  I'm not just making this stuff up.  A deflationary currency WOULD and DOES stifle the economy.

[SkRRJyTC]

Funny how the entire technology industry seems to do just fine despite being hugely deflationary.  A $1000 PC today costs $500 next year... and yet people still buy. Funny huh?

[Technomage]

Funny how the entire technology industry seems to do just fine despite being hugely deflationary.  A $1000 PC today costs $500 next year... and yet people still buy. Funny huh?

Exactly.

It's actually very healthy in many ways to have a deflationary environment, which can't be understood by someone who relies on the "economics 101" as it is taught today. I would never have supported Bitcoin so strongly if the monetary model wasn't exactly what it is. Bitcoin is the first real currency that will put the Austrian school to the test and I'm confident that it'll pass the test. This will not be the problem that kills Bitcoin.

It will undoubtedly lead to a smaller economy than we have now but people will be less in debt and they will have a much more solid foundation in their personal economies. This would apply to all levels of the economy, from governments to companies and regular people. I embrace this change, people should invest money in projects that they support from other perspectives than money. Investing only based on maximum return is an old way of thinking, investing to things that matter and actually produce meaningful things is the way to go.

Consider the amount of useless crap the economy produces today, the amount of absolutely unproductive development that is done... the amount of money that is invested in stuff that is only produced because they have enough money to create a marketing campaign convincing enough to manipulate people to buy them. This behaviour will have less reinforcement in a more deflationary environment because first of all consumers will consume less crap that they don't really need and investors will think differently because they have to.

The economy wouldn't die but it certainly would be different. Consumption and development would be focused more on things that 1) consumers feel they really need and 2) what investors and enterpreneurs feel they want to develop and produce. As long as the effective deflation isn't on hyper mode, and there is no reason to believe it would with the exception of short periods of rapid userbase inflation, there will still be a lot of consuming and a lot of investing.

Simply hoarding will give you a small increase in your purchasing power, a good investment will still make you much more than that. I could go on forever but the bottom line is that not only is a monetary system like this helpful in correcting our overly materialistic way of life but it will lead to healthier and more meaningful ways of spending money. And on top of everything, it will actually help save our planet. Less consumption = good.

[hazek]

It's basic economics.  Read any economics textbook, and it'll show you the same thing.  I learned this stuff in Economics 101.  

Well well, so you are merely repeating what you heard or read from someone else pretending as if you're teaching some facts of reality. What if your precious "basic economics" has it all wrong? What then dear sir?


Please. You can shove those basic 101 economics up where the sun don't shine. Those same basic economics are what enable these huge socialistic and oppressive governments, it's those same basic economics that enable the governments around the globe to wage all these different wars, it's those same basic economics that enable wealth distribution through the invisible hand of inflation via fiat money created out of thin air by a small number of people, benefiting their friends who get it first and growing the wealth disparity bigger and bigger, it's those same basic economics that are what caused and are exacerbating the current depression and it's those same basic economics that completely failed to see it coming.

Here's an interesting thing though, not all economic thought is the same. The Austrian school of economic thought for instance strongly disagrees with the basic economics you hold so dearly, it perfectly predicted this crisis we're in right now and it's aftermath and has completely different solutions to the problem. So while your glorious basic economics has zero evidence of credibility and a long resume of disastrous failures, forgive me if I take a big steamy dump on it, and listen to the other theory that got it exactly right in every single case so far.

Satisfied now?  I'm not just making this stuff up.  A deflationary currency WOULD and DOES stifle the economy.

BULLSHIT. Citing other people saying what you're repeating after them IS NOT EVIDENCE.

[molecular]

It's simple logic.  Why would I spend money today if it'll be worth twice as much tomorrow?  I'll hold out and spend money only when absolutely necessary, and so will most other people.  This would lead to economic restriction, lack of consumer spending, and ultimately, higher prices on your everyday goods.  We'd end up spending the same money on fewer goods, effectively lowering the purchasing power of our currency.

That "simple logic" obviously fails: people are buying computers like mad although they can buy twice as many next year with the same amount of money and computers are not "absolutely necessary" to have (for most).
Another way to see it: saving is "spending later", so some poeple that have saved in the past, will spend today.

Also: any amount of a money can support any size economy given that the money is divisible enough.

So people "saving" (which is just spending later) will not harm the economy. Prices will simply adjust by free market forces: if (all else equal)...

• demand for money (not wealth) increases => people cut spending and/or sell stuff => demand for products decreases => prices of products fall
• demand for money (not wealth) decreases => people spend more and/or reduce selling of stuff => demand for products increases => prices of products rise

I hope the rage of hazek (are you hayek with a non-austrian keyboard?) wont come down on me, I will try to substantiate my claims upon request.

[hazek]

Half jokingly but still, I'm starting to get the feeling SgtSpike is payed to spread the status quo economics 101 propaganda BS over here.

[hazek]

I hope the rage of hazek (are you hayek with a non-austrian keyboard?) wont come down on me, I will try to substantiate my claims upon request.

Of course not, what you said makes perfect sense and you backed it up with real world evidence.

I just get a rage fit at zombies who don't investigate their beliefs and just blindly repeat something someone else taught them with zero evidence to back it up. It's the attitude more so than the person. And since the majority of people at no fault of their own weren't taught any critical thinking skills in school, just like I wasn't, I really don't have any patience left to give BS credibility by elevating my way of communicating to a civilized debate so I just end up in a rage.