If two events are concurrent, does it follow they are related?

Some people are currently arguing that the stipends are damaging SL's economy. The proof they offer? The declining $L.
This is not proof, by any stretch of the imagination. Just because one is happening at the same time as the other, doesn't mean the two events are related, until you prove it. At best, you can present it as a possibility. It remains conjecture until proven.
Imagine the stipends are on trial. The crime? Murdering the $L. The prosecution puts forward its case...
"Your honour, the stipends existed at the same time as the $L got murdered. The stipends did it."
You'd expect more than a circumstantial case, wouldn't you? Beyond a reasonable doubt, and all.
The problem with the current anti-stipend debate, is that we have no way of measuring what impact, if any, stipends are having on total money supply.
Things we don't know:
1: How much leaves the economy via sinks.
2: How many ACTIVE accounts there are, both premium and basic. How much of the total stipend paid is actually making it inworld.
3: How much is lost when people leave SL. If someone decides to leave, and they've got say $L1000, they're probably not going to bother taking it to the Lindex.
So we have no way of measuring the impact of the stipend on total money supply, because we cannot calculate how much is coming in, and how much is going out. If you can't crunch the numbers, you got nothing.
We can demonstrate the $L is on a downward trend, but no matter how many graphs you pull out to that effect, it doesn't prove the stipends are responsible. Now they may be partially, fully or not at all responsible. However, it's only one variable (and one we can't quantify). Others exist. Some of these variables may be quantifiable numerically (like amount of land on the market), and some are less tangible. People are a component of the economy, and not all of our behaviour can be rationalised. For all we know, LAG could be a factor in a declining $L.
Instead of fighting for the removal of the stipend... if you really are concerned about the economy, why not fight for better economic data from LL?
Once we have the numbers, all the numbers, then we can start arguing.

Some important things to keep in mind with the issue:

The big argument I've seen thus far is that of the 'closed economy' - it fails due to 2 things:

1. The economy isn't closed.. There is money going in and there is money destroyed - the advocates never argue the money sinks. They never argue the opposite side of the coin.

2. Second Life grows... more people come in. One argument is that this is good thing as the L$ will become scarcer! (as it would if all money in is plugged and yet money out via sinks is sustained.

Also, the biggest supporter of the move is a currency speculator.


You do the math

Personally I don't use my stipend - I give at least 3 times that much away each week supporting events and other such stuff.

And I actually enjoy the L$ being around its level - every time it goes 'down' more people seem to buy it - and by some crazy coincidence my sales days are always better.. seems for us folks that 'make rainbows' its a good thing - the increase in sales I get if far more profitable than the L$ going up by 3 cents