Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:In economics, inflation has only one meaning, the premeditated dilution in the value of money by a criminal government, in other words, grand larceny.

The world according to Bob E.

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:In economics, inflation has only one meaning, the premeditated dilution in the value of money by a criminal government, in other words, grand larceny.

That's completely untrue. The standard use of inflation is price inflation: the rate at which prices for goods and services are rising in the wider economy.
The standard metrics being Retail Price, Consumer Price and Core Inflation (RPI, CPI, CI).
This is what economists are referring to when they use the word Inflation without a modifier.

You are talking about Monetary Inflation, which is a side order and only of interest because it explains SOME of the inflation in an economy.
But it doesn't cover Wage Push Inflation, Cost Push Inflation, Demand Pull Inflation, Imported Inflation. And I don't know how many others there are.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote:In economics, inflation has only one meaning, the premeditated dilution in the value of money by a criminal government, in other words, grand larceny.

That's completely untrue. The standard use of inflation is price inflation: the rate at which prices for goods and services are rising in the wider economy.
The standard metrics being Retail Price, Consumer Price and Core Inflation (RPI, CPI, CI).
This is what economists are referring to when they use the word Inflation without a modifier.

You are talking about Monetary Inflation, which is a side order and only of interest because it explains SOME of the inflation in an economy.
But it doesn't cover Wage Push Inflation, Cost Push Inflation, Demand Pull Inflation, Imported Inflation. And I don't know how many others there are.

As I said, inflation only refers to a dilution in the value of money by a criminal government. Any other definition is just so much mumbo jumbo like a gangster trying to cop a plea.

bobevenson wrote: As I said, inflation only refers to a dilution in the value of money by a criminal government. Any other definition is just so much mumbo jumbo like a gangster trying to cop a plea.

So you are willing to let prices do whatever they want so long as money supply is flat?

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

Well you're certainly from another planet but answering with a comment is not the same as answering the question(as I well know from your refusal to answer my question about whether you are an agnostic or an absolute fool), so, you say you will match all property with an equal amount of money and given that it appears that current estimates of the value of all the property far exceeds the current money supply will you be allowing the banks to print the amount needed and if so will you not then cause rampant inflation, if not why not?

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote: As I said, inflation only refers to a dilution in the value of money by a criminal government. Any other definition is just so much mumbo jumbo like a gangster trying to cop a plea.

So you are willing to let prices do whatever they want so long as money supply is flat?

Individual prices are set by supply and demand, but the overall price level is set by the money supply.

bobevenson wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote: As I said, inflation only refers to a dilution in the value of money by a criminal government. Any other definition is just so much mumbo jumbo like a gangster trying to cop a plea.

So you are willing to let prices do whatever they want so long as money supply is flat?

Individual prices are set by supply and demand, but the overall price level is set by the money supply.

But you are going to make money supply match the market value all the property in the USA.
Currently there is roughly $3,150 Billion of M1 money in circulation.
M1 includes cash, coins, bank deposits, demand deposits and so on.

Or you can use M2 money if you like and call it $12,600 Billion.
But then you have to count money market funds and all sorts of contracts that aren't subject to withdrawal on demand and thus are a substitute for actual money.

Not that it matters because the land alone in the USA has already been valued at $23,000 Billion and so you need to issue enough new money to cover that. Plus enough to cover the market vlaue of every object presently sitting on top of that land including all the buildings and the things in the buildings.

This means that by your weird definition, the USA is currently suffering titanic levels of deflation.

Put that another way, if you implement your plan and stop this horrible monetary deflation, everyone has to put up with enormous price inflation.

You are missing something rather huge there. Credit can be extended on the basis of lots of things other than government issued money. That's the whole point of securitization and the credit derivatives market - these are giant multi trillion dollar affairs already. If you imposed fixed money supply the effect would be to kickstart these into higher gear and undermine your policy.

Perhaps you want to ban the entire derivatives market in order to preserve price stability in a fixed money supply regime?

bobevenson wrote:It is mathematically impossible for there to be inflation, which is an increase in the general price level, if the amount of government-issued money equates to the total present value of property, ...

I can see why there could be no monetary inflation under this idea but why not price inflation? As goods can become scarce and producers can inflate their prices to meet demand thereby making the pound in your pocket worth less.

Also, you are still ignoring the issue of implementation of your idea as as FDP has pointed out under your idea you think the US economy is seriously deflated and as such would, I presume, allow these banks to print trillions of dollars to reach equality but in the current world this will create massive inflation if not hyper-inflation, so how would you deal with this issue?

and if there is any tendency toward inflation, it is the responsibility of the government to reduce the money supply through taxation.

I'm puzzled here, what are you going to tax to reduce the money supply, property? So you are going to control inflation through price-control, how does this marry with your idea of the free-market?

Arising_uk wrote:As goods can become scarce and producers can inflate their prices to meet demand thereby making the pound in your pocket worth less.

Gasoline (oh, I'm sorry, petrol) prices can go up depending on supply and demand. This doesn't make one's money worth less, like the dilution effect of inflation.

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:As goods can become scarce and producers can inflate their prices to meet demand thereby making the pound in your pocket worth less.

Gasoline (oh, I'm sorry, petrol) prices can go up depending on supply and demand. This doesn't make one's money worth less, like the dilution effect of inflation.

It quite literally does. Even you have managed to get that money is utilised in exchange for goods and services. So when you get less goods and services for your money the value of money has fallen in exchange terms - which are its only terms.

The ever increasing prices of stuff like gasoline is the absolute definition of inflation. monetary inflation is only a part of that process.

Well, until you print a minimum of 20 trillion new dollars for your plan. Which we have all noticed is a problem you are desperate to avoid facing up to.

bobevenson wrote:If people want to take IOUs or extend credit in some way, that's not a problem at all. But eventually, legal tender is demanded, and if it's not available, whoever took the IOUs or extended the credit will be forced to go down with his ship because under the AEP, there are no bailouts for anybody or any company for any reason.

Oh but it is a big problem for you. Those objects can represent foreign money not US currency. In the event that somebody turned up with your policies and looked like winning an election, enough of that money would move offshore to tank the dollar before a single vote was cast. Last one to move is stuck with you, and the dollar you are about to destroy by printing $trillions.