Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote:What is so "despotic" about taxation if the "divinely inspired" AEP is going to do the same thing?

Taxation isn't despotic, just taxation not levied directly and equally on all property, regardless of who owns it or what it's used for.

So tell us more about this plan to fight inflation by putting up the cost of living through tax hikes.
How do you propose to prevent companies with higher tax burdens from passing on the cost by putting up their prices (which is what inflation is).

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:What do "prophets" know about economics?

I am Bob the Baptist, the new guru, the modern messiah, the wizard of Ouzo, and a divinely inspired prophet of all things spiritual, political and economic.

Well you "got me", then. Since you appear to be just "pulling our chains", I'll take leave.

Enjoy...

FlashDangerpants wrote:How do you propose to prevent companies with higher tax burdens from passing on the cost by putting up their prices (which is what inflation is).

Inflation can only be created by the government increasing the supply of money beyond the present value of property.

So much for your study of Economics then.

Arising_uk wrote:So much for your study of Economics then.

No, I deal with meta-economics, analysis at a more abstract and higher level, one that is far beyond your understanding.

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:So much for your study of Economics then.

No, I deal with meta-economics, analysis at a more abstract and higher level, one that is far beyond your understanding.

And beyond yours too.

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:No, I deal with meta-economics, analysis at a more abstract and higher level, one that is far beyond your understanding.

And yet you appear unable to answer any meta-analytic critique of your ideas? So much for your study of meta-economics.

bobevenson wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:How do you propose to prevent companies with higher tax burdens from passing on the cost by putting up their prices (which is what inflation is).

Inflation can only be created by the government increasing the supply of money beyond the present value of property.

That's nonsense. Inflation is a measure of cost of living. It tracks prices not money supply.

Money supply influences prices and therefore inflation, but only in concert with other factors (the V and Q in the equation MV=PQ for instance).

And any way, money supply is a tiny fraction of the value of extant property. There is pretty much the right amount of it for the amount of stuff being bought and sold on a daily basis. To provide enough to cover all the property that isn't even bought and sold that often (think about it) would require a massive amount of unnecessary cash that the market doesn't need.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:No, I deal with meta-economics, analysis at a more abstract and higher level, one that is far beyond your understanding.

And yet you appear unable to answer any meta-analytic critique of your ideas?

I have answered comment after comment until I could pass for a blue-complected alien.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:How do you propose to prevent companies with higher tax burdens from passing on the cost by putting up their prices (which is what inflation is).

Inflation can only be created by the government increasing the supply of money beyond the present value of property.

That's nonsense. Inflation is a measure of cost of living. It tracks prices not money supply.

Under Evensonomics, inflation is defined as follows:
It = M1/M2, where I = inflation, t = any time period, M1 = money exchanged for but not representing property, and M2 = all money exchanged for property. Inflation has nothing to do with high prices, increasing prices or prices at all. It can range between 0 to 100% for any time period.

bobevenson wrote: Under Evensonomics, inflation is defined as follows:
It = M1/M2, where I = inflation, t = any time period, M1 = money exchanged for but not representing property, and M2 = all money exchanged for property. Inflation has nothing to do with high prices, increasing prices or prices at all. It can range between 0 to 100% for any time period.

If your 'inflation' has nothing to do with prices then it isn't inflation. It isn't the thing that the Fed targets at 2.5%.
You aren't fooling anyone.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Under Evensonomics, inflation is defined as follows:
It = M1/M2, where I = inflation, t = any time period, M1 = money exchanged for but not representing property, and M2 = all money exchanged for property. Inflation has nothing to do with high prices, increasing prices or prices at all. It can range between 0 to 100% for any time period.

If your 'inflation' has nothing to do with prices then it isn't inflation. It isn't the thing that the Fed targets at 2.5%.
You aren't fooling anyone.

Flash I think the only kind of inflation that relates to Bob is the one going on in his mind (self-proclaimed prophet )

PhilX

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Under Evensonomics, inflation is defined as follows:
It = M1/M2, where I = inflation, t = any time period, M1 = money exchanged for but not representing property, and M2 = all money exchanged for property. Inflation has nothing to do with high prices, increasing prices or prices at all. It can range between 0 to 100% for any time period.

iseaseIf your 'inflation' has nothing to do with prices then it isn't inflation. It isn't the thing that the Fed targets at 2.5%.
You aren't fooling anyone.

Inflation has nothing to do with high prices in the same way that influenza has nothing to do with high fever. You can lower a patient's temperature, but that doesn't cure the disease. In the same way, since inflation is a dilution in the value of money, even if prices stayed the same, you would still have inflation, if due to greater productivity, prices should have actually decreased.

Do you honestly think you have got yourself out of trouble by switching away from price inflation to strict monetary inflation?

So you are completely uninterested in normal inflation which for everyone else in the world means cost of living and prices.
The Fed targets price inflation, nobody directly targets monetary inflation.
The stuff you mentioned about Weimar Germany, the bit where you need a wheelbarrow of notes to buy bread, that was price inflation.

So here's your new basic problem.
You only care about monetary inflation.
You don't give a fuck if your monetary policy causes prices to spiral, as long as you don't gotta print any more money.
But everything has to be valued 1:1 against the monetary value of what it is worth (and that depends on prices, which are spiralling).
And you need the money supply to match the market value of all the goods that are and are not traded as if they were all traded on the same day.

So you have to keep printing new money in ever larger amounts to satisfy the price inflation that your supposedly non inflationary policy causes.
And you have monetary and price inflation anyway, all because you can't see that they are linked.