The downside to deflation in a debt-based monetary system?

[Black Flag]

That's it? Just prove my point for me, followed by...nyah?

Prove what point?

You've made plenty of accusations - but forgive me if I missed it, I do not see any point.

 

[Black Flag]

You just totally miss the basis of issuance of current "money" system

I do not think so, since for the last several pages I have been quite specific on that matter.

When government buys a good or service with its paper or electronic entry, it's merely an acknowledgement of indebtedness

No, it is not.

How can you go in debt when you trade an economic good for an economic good?
You do not go into "debt" by trading an apple for an orange. Who do you owe, what do you owe, and why?

Trading money (an economic good) for another product (economic good) does not create a debt.

A debt is an obligation - and as I've asked so many times before, what obligation exists when government buys a good with money?

It's like how someone may give a person a bearer-check in return for the goods or services, the check may even be passed around from one person to another & used as money but the fact remains that it's an acknowledgement of debt, to be made good by the issuer

Correct - but that is a check - which is a PROMISE or OBLIGATION to make good at some point in the future.

Money is not a check - it carries NO OBLIGATION in the future.

As hard as you try, you cannot make money into a debt.

Again, just because there's no more an obligation to pay "something", doesn't mean it's not an obligation anymore

**blink**
Because there is no obligation means there is an obligation.

Eventually the contradiction rises to the top.

Do you hear the warning yet? You hold a contradiction as a fundamental part of your pet economic theory. You insist in enforcing this contradiction - but it will not make your economic theory "work".

Looking at your exchanges earlier in the thread with "Steven Douglas" & "Gold Standard", I don't think you understand how & why commercial bank money causes the inflationary boom

It has not done such a thing - which is the whole point of the dialogue.

It has created a boom - a gross mis-allocation of resources = but again this is NOT inflation but a mis-allocation!

And when this mis-allocation is corrected, you get a recession = but again this is NOT deflation but a correction!


Which is my point.

You've convoluted two, independent concepts into one causation theory that is wrong

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I do not think so, since for the last several pages I have been quite specific on that matter.

No, it is not.

How can you go in debt when you trade an economic good for an economic good?
You do not go into "debt" by trading an apple for an orange. Who do you owe, what do you owe, and why?

Trading money (an economic good) for another product (economic good) does not create a debt.

A debt is an obligation - and as I've asked so many times before, what obligation exists when government buys a good with money?

As I've said, obligation is now unspecified & slowly people are waking up to it, again, just because someone issued a $0 bearer-check & it started circulating as "economic good", it wouldn't cease to be obligation

Correct - but that is a check - which is a PROMISE or OBLIGATION to make good at some point in the future.

Money is not a check - it carries NO OBLIGATION in the future.

As hard as you try, you cannot make money into a debt.

Again, all you must do is take out a note from your pocket & read what's on it, if you really want to know why it's an IOU, an acknowledgement of debt

**blink**
Because there is no obligation means there is an obligation.

Eventually the contradiction rises to the top.

Do you hear the warning yet? You hold a contradiction as a fundamental part of your pet economic theory. You insist in enforcing this contradiction - but it will not make your economic theory "work".

No, read a little more carefully, there's an obligation but it's unspecified & as I've said, people are slowly waking up to it

It has not done such a thing - which is the whole point of the dialogue.

It has created a boom - a gross mis-allocation of resources = but again this is NOT inflation but a mis-allocation!

And when this mis-allocation is corrected, you get a recession = but again this is NOT deflation but a correction!


Which is my point.

You've convoluted two, independent concepts into one causation theory that is wrong

Again, you make your own definitions, according to your own unique worldview but the whole of Austrian theory of business-cycle rests on it & you don't seem to understand it so I'd suggest reading more into Austrian Economics rather than assuming your unique worldview to be a fact of some sort

 

[Black Flag]

As I've said, obligation is now unspecified & slowly people are waking up to it, again, just because someone issued a $0 bearer-check & it started circulating as "economic good", it wouldn't cease to be obligation

You continue to make a baseless claim.

I have asked, repeatedly, you to explain what "obligation" exists, and you avoid it.

Therefore, I can only conclude you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Black Flag]

http://library.mises.org/books/Jorg Guido Hulsmann/Deflation and Liberty.pdf
DEFLATION AND LIBERTY

 

[seraphson]

This thread turned out to be more interesting than I originally thought...

 

[Black Flag]

As I've said, obligation is now unspecified & slowly people are waking up to it, again, just because someone issued a $0 bearer-check & it started circulating as "economic good", it wouldn't cease to be obligation

How the heck can you claim an obligation exists if you cannot specify the obligation??? You are making up nonsense!

Again, all you must do is take out a note from your pocket & read what's on it, if you really want to know why it's an IOU, an acknowledgement of debt

It says no such thing.

It says this notes DISPELS DEBT and OBLIGATION, not that it creates one.

You are truly making up stories.

No, read a little more carefully, there's an obligation but it's unspecified & as I've said, people are slowly waking up to it

You are making up stories.

"You owe, but I can't tell you what you owe, or who you owe it to"

Again, you make your own definitions, according to your own unique worldview but the whole of Austrian theory of business-cycle rests on it & you don't seem to understand it so I'd suggest reading more into Austrian Economics rather than assuming your unique worldview to be a fact of some sort

You obviously do not know what you are talking about.

You can't even answer three simple questions - questions which every lender and every debtor could answer nearly instantly.