Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:No, my friend, the money, mostly in bank accounts, is already out there. The problem is that the government keeps putting even more money out there, creating premeditated inflation (like premeditated murder, except the victim is everybody).

Money in bank accounts is counted as m0 money supply, also known as Narrow Money because it is, as that implies, a very narrow definition indeed.

There are only 390 Billion such dollars in circulation which is plenty for current levels of economic activity, but not enough to buy even a medium sized country.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... -supply-m0

The land alone in the USA has already been valued at $23,000 Billion.
The stuff on top of the land is worth incalculably more.

You will have to print the most suicidally huge quantities of cash ever.
Next to you President Mugabe looks like a god sent economic genius.

bobevenson wrote:a) Most money is not in currency, but in bank accounts, and I don't know how much that is, but b) if you don't agree with my proposition, then you must obviously object to the very definition of money being defined as a medium of exchange since the sum total of all property could never be exchanged without the money that supposedly represents it.

The number I gave you included coins, cash and bank deposits. As I said, that is Narrow Money. There is not enough of this in existence in the whole world for your American only purposes, not even close.

The M1 number I gave you before includes that plus demand deposits including ESCROW and so on. This is not exactly money by your rules, but is close enough to be called Near Money. There is not enough of this in the world either.

M2 money is a much larger pool consisting of the above as well as things like short term Money Market Funds (a highly liquid asset, equivalent enough to money to move prices and crash economies).

M3 and M4 are way outside your possible scope, and are a bit weird anyway. The point is that what makes something belong to one or another category is basically how quickly it can be exchanged for stuff. none of these monetary definitions will do you any good, because there isn't enough of any of them to meet your monetary needs.

The sum total of all property cannot be exchanged for cash all at once, that's just a fact. It doesn't change anything about the nature of money, it just reflects the fact there is no need for such an amount of money to exist unless for some reason you want to sell the entire world to an alien for cash. In the absence of that requirement, the amount of money you describe would merely causes hyperinflation.

You're still just ranting on to yourself and not addressing the issue about your taxation idea, its implementation and the resulting hyper-inflation.

Arising_uk wrote:You're still just ranting on to yourself and not addressing the issue about your taxation idea, its implementation and the resulting hyper-inflation.

As I have already discussed, taxes against all property with intrinsic market value and audited by an outside agency, will be billed monthly like utility payments such as water and electricity. Total taxes will not be any higher than they are now, but will be more properly distributed, and there will no longer be the thousands of other taxes and fees levied by the government. Of course, none of this has anything to do with inflation, that criminal activity perpetrated by the government.

And none of that has anything to do with the fact that if you implement your proposed tax scheme you will be responsible for hyper-inflation and the crash of the US economy, I wish you well in this endeavour.

Arising_uk wrote:And none of that has anything to do with the fact that if you implement your proposed tax scheme you will be responsible for hyper-inflation and the crash of the US economy, I wish you well in this endeavour.

I'm sorry, but taxation has absolutely nothing to do with inflation.

bobevenson wrote:The government spending of money it just creates out of thin air, and otherwise allowing the money supply to increase and be spent without being backed by property it supposedly represents as a medium of exchange is what results in inflation, which is a dilution in the value of money, and the government is 100% responsible for it.

There isn't enough money in existence for that to be true.

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:And none of that has anything to do with the fact that if you implement your proposed tax scheme you will be responsible for hyper-inflation and the crash of the US economy, I wish you well in this endeavour.

I'm sorry, but taxation has absolutely nothing to do with inflation.

Creating enough money for everything in the world to be bought for cash all at once would very quickly be linked to inflation though.
And then you would have to print enough money for the inflated value of the goods, which would be linked to more inflation.
And then you would print so much money that everyone would be poor.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote:No, my friend, the money, mostly in bank accounts, is already out there. The problem is that the government keeps putting even more money out there, creating premeditated inflation (like premeditated murder, except the victim is everybody).

Money in bank accounts is counted as m0 money supply, also known as Narrow Money because it is, as that implies, a very narrow definition indeed.

There are only 390 Billion such dollars in circulation which is plenty for current levels of economic activity, but not enough to buy even a medium sized country.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... -supply-m0

The land alone in the USA has already been valued at $23,000 Billion.
The stuff on top of the land is worth incalculably more.

You will have to print the most suicidally huge quantities of cash ever.
Next to you President Mugabe looks like a god sent economic genius.

Actually, according to the link you post it appears to be 3,900 billion, not 390. But still considerably less that our GNP or GDP which are both well over the 16,000 billion range. It appears that Bob would need to multiply the current money supply over 5x its current amount in order to roughly match the money supply with goods and services (if that is what Bob's AEP intends). Is that the plan, Bob?

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:And none of that has anything to do with the fact that if you implement your proposed tax scheme you will be responsible for hyper-inflation and the crash of the US economy, I wish you well in this endeavour.

I'm sorry, but taxation has absolutely nothing to do with inflation.

If taxation has "absolutely nothing" to do with inflation, then how will the AEP's plan to control inflation through taxation work?

EDIT: Just to refresh our memories, here are your words, Bob.

bobevenson wrote:Any tendency toward inflation would be controlled through taxation to reduce the money supply.

Gary Childress wrote: Actually, according to the link you post it appears to be 3,900 billion, not 390. But still considerably less that our GNP or GDP which are both well over the 16,000 billion range. It appears that Bob would need to multiply the current money supply over 5x its current amount in order to roughly match the money supply with goods and services (if that is what Bob's AEP intends). Is that the plan, Bob?

Whoops!
That zero is quite a lot of money.
Not enough for Bob though.

bobevenson wrote:I'm sorry, but taxation has absolutely nothing to do with inflation.

Are you being deliberately evasive or are you just dense? As it is you who says that to stop inflation you need to balance money with property and as such if you put your taxation idea into practice you will have to allow the banks to print trillions of dollars to achieve such a result and cause hyper-inflation and the collapse of the US economy. It's about this that we've been asking you, specifically what is your plan to stop this result if you get your fantasy of implementing your taxation idea?