Inflation and Debt. Why the fed is powerless
- Thread starter CzargwaR
- Start date
Travlyr
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 14,088
Separation of Money and State is what will liberate... not more BS.
Here is more BS from the Chicago School,
Here is more BS from the Chicago School,
True ^^^ IF, and ONLY IF, inflation is redefined. Inflation is the increase in the money supply = "Quantitative Easing." <--- Already done and likely to accelerate.
Zippyjuan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 49,008
Not really a re- definition of the word. You had no troubles figuring which sort of inflation they were talking about. Rising prices is the most common usage for the term.
From Investopedia:
Dictionary.com:
I kinda liked this one:
From Investopedia:
Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflation
I kinda liked this one:
Last edited:
Steven Douglas
Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,956
I like thinking about things like this, because I am always looking for better ways to illustrate economic concepts in ways that would slam home instantly and register clearly with lay people in a way that is also technically accurate.
It's semantically interesting because of the metaphor involved. The currency supply is literally being diluted - like water used to refill a half empty whiskey bottle, but sold for the same amount (for a time, until people get wise). If our currency was an exotic gas (i.e., Ethylene=Gold), and the money supply was a balloon half-filled with that gas, filling it the rest of the way with an inert gas like N2, or just air (fiat currency), it would conflate the two gases in a way that literally inflates the entire freshly diluted money supply. A doubling of the quantity, but a halving of the value.
Inflation as a metaphor works equally well for the effects. If, instead of price tags with numbers, all prices were indicated by tiny balloons inflated to various sizes, inflating the currency would cause a corresponding inflation of all price tag balloons as a delayed response.
The author of the article conflated cause and effect as if they were one in the same, the way I think most people do, the reason for which seems clear enough. The act of inflating the currency happens unseen, while the effects of inflation are always felt afterward, seen as rising (inflating) prices. So the cause is referred to in terms of the effect.
Conflation of cause and effect is an interested reflection of what actually occurs with the fiat currency money supply, which is literally a conflation of two similar but characteristically different items (existing money and newly created money), which are mixed together and referred to as if they were identical, until the real differences are between them are indistinguishable.
What happens to any other commodity that increases in supply is pure inflation, because you are increasing the supply (and thus reducing the scarcity) of identical items. If a counterfeit of any of these items is introduced (pirated software, fake watches, fake gold) these items conflate that supply.
EDIT: What I find insidious comes from this line:
"After all, inflation declined during the financial crisis and subsequent recession, and remains low by post-war standards."
Any time the government or anyone else refers to a baseline of activity as a "zero" reference point, to obfuscate and obscure what is actually happening with the raw numbers. For example, 2-5% inflation might be considered "normal" (acceptable, gonna happen regardless), so we call that zero, any deviation from which is referenced in terms of inflation, or even "deflation".
That is how heroin addicts feel the effects of heroin once addicted. There really is a baseline, as a certain quantity of heroin must be taken in perpetually just to feel normal, any amount below which feels terrible, or above which produces an actual high. And that baseline, the amount needed just to feel normal, always increases.
It's semantically interesting because of the metaphor involved. The currency supply is literally being diluted - like water used to refill a half empty whiskey bottle, but sold for the same amount (for a time, until people get wise). If our currency was an exotic gas (i.e., Ethylene=Gold), and the money supply was a balloon half-filled with that gas, filling it the rest of the way with an inert gas like N2, or just air (fiat currency), it would conflate the two gases in a way that literally inflates the entire freshly diluted money supply. A doubling of the quantity, but a halving of the value.
Inflation as a metaphor works equally well for the effects. If, instead of price tags with numbers, all prices were indicated by tiny balloons inflated to various sizes, inflating the currency would cause a corresponding inflation of all price tag balloons as a delayed response.
The author of the article conflated cause and effect as if they were one in the same, the way I think most people do, the reason for which seems clear enough. The act of inflating the currency happens unseen, while the effects of inflation are always felt afterward, seen as rising (inflating) prices. So the cause is referred to in terms of the effect.
Conflation of cause and effect is an interested reflection of what actually occurs with the fiat currency money supply, which is literally a conflation of two similar but characteristically different items (existing money and newly created money), which are mixed together and referred to as if they were identical, until the real differences are between them are indistinguishable.
What happens to any other commodity that increases in supply is pure inflation, because you are increasing the supply (and thus reducing the scarcity) of identical items. If a counterfeit of any of these items is introduced (pirated software, fake watches, fake gold) these items conflate that supply.
EDIT: What I find insidious comes from this line:
"After all, inflation declined during the financial crisis and subsequent recession, and remains low by post-war standards."
Any time the government or anyone else refers to a baseline of activity as a "zero" reference point, to obfuscate and obscure what is actually happening with the raw numbers. For example, 2-5% inflation might be considered "normal" (acceptable, gonna happen regardless), so we call that zero, any deviation from which is referenced in terms of inflation, or even "deflation".
That is how heroin addicts feel the effects of heroin once addicted. There really is a baseline, as a certain quantity of heroin must be taken in perpetually just to feel normal, any amount below which feels terrible, or above which produces an actual high. And that baseline, the amount needed just to feel normal, always increases.
Last edited:
Similar threads
