JonBostwick: mike montagne: and the rule is that it is not an increase in "money" which is inflation, but an increase in money/circulation *per* the wealth the circulation is intended to represent. Thats your own personal definition. It doesn't hold water. [1] If the money is inflated more quickly than production increases there will be an increase in price levels. [2] If money is inflated more slowly than the increase in production there will be a decrease in price levels. But under both conditions the money supply is increase, thus inflating. [3] Many people incorrectly equate general price increases with inflation, you are doing so to a lesser a degree. [4] Of course, most Austrians oppose government currencies and endorse free market money: [5] letting individuals choose the conditions of their exchanges. That system would completely obsolete your entire theory.
mike montagne: and the rule is that it is not an increase in "money" which is inflation, but an increase in money/circulation *per* the wealth the circulation is intended to represent.
and the rule is that it is not an increase in "money" which is inflation, but an increase in money/circulation *per* the wealth the circulation is intended to represent.
Thats your own personal definition. It doesn't hold water.
[1] If the money is inflated more quickly than production increases there will be an increase in price levels. [2] If money is inflated more slowly than the increase in production there will be a decrease in price levels. But under both conditions the money supply is increase, thus inflating.
[3] Many people incorrectly equate general price increases with inflation, you are doing so to a lesser a degree.
[4] Of course, most Austrians oppose government currencies and endorse free market money: [5] letting individuals choose the conditions of their exchanges. That system would completely obsolete your entire theory.
No, mine is a universal definition which you can find in your dictionary. What's more, your different cases exemplify your ignorance:
1. Yes, this is traditional inflation, just as I said; but it is only theoretical that it results in increasing prices. There is no formal proof or theorem of your assertion; and there is every reason to reject it because the asserted phenomenon suggests we simply price ourselves to death, sensing I suppose excessive circulation?
Sure.
2. According to definition, no, this is deflation; and again, it is only theoretical that price levels decrease; for at the same time related debt might so increase as to compel rising prices to cover necessary margins of solubility. So there are far more numbers to account for if your proposition is to hold water; and we disprove the potential of those numbers to account for your assertion on our home page.
3. As you *could* see everywhere you can look at the tracks I've left, I have never equated inflation to price inflation in my life. In fact, our home page tells a story in which I rejected the idea from the very first moment a teacher tried "teaching" it (merely asserting it, like you).
4. Then most Austrians would be responsible for the system which is failing us.
5. Individuals don't get to choose the conditions of their exchanges. They're dictated to us by usurping representation. What intelligent public in fact would *ever* choose to impose upon itself a system which can only multiply debt to collapse under terminal sums of insoluble debt? No intelligent public ever has; and none ever will.
No, neither am I suggesting you would comprise an "intelligent" public.
6. You have that system; and it is only because you can hardly offer even a true fact, that you relegate yourself to making such bizarre claims. If you knew your material and offered principles, intelligent people would make the deduction from what you lay before them.
With you of course, that would be impossible.
Hey, nice to visit with the anti-Christ today.
JonBostwick: mike montagne:What if there was no money suddenly, and yet we have all these debts to pay *in money*? That's just fine, because you don't see the problem? As usual, the problem is government. Abolish legal tender laws.
mike montagne:What if there was no money suddenly, and yet we have all these debts to pay *in money*? That's just fine, because you don't see the problem?
As usual, the problem is government. Abolish legal tender laws.
Oh, and then Mr. anti-Christ, money and free markets would "just work it all out..."
Like what legal tender laws does your Federal Reserve System observe, but exclusion of competing currencies?
mike montagne:No, mine is a universal definition which you can find in your dictionary. What's more, your different cases exemplify your ignorance:
Yours is the incorrect mainstream definition. Lots of people say irregardless, that doesn't make it a real word, does it?
The only desirable *exchange* between producers *is* to exchange equal measures of production for the production of others.
Why? Desirable for whom? How have you proven this?
You haven't justified usury, which is coercive cost attached to our promises to pay each other. Instead, you have proven you're the cause of failure under multiplying debt.
He has. There is nothing "coercive" about it.
Moreover, the "entrepreneur" cannot as you assert, be trading current money for future gain: Against the hope of succeeding, the entrepreneur is coerced to take on an obligation which can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation until inevitable collapse -- which makes "future gain" ever less possible, and ultimately impossible.
Explain, don't waffle. So far you seem to be an idiot savant, who cannot deal with real economics but only in equations with little to no bearing on reality.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
JonBostwick:Deflation is seperate from price decreases. Even a gold standard would be inflationary if newly mined gold was added to the money supply more quickly than gold was consumed by production.
You are correct, of course. I should have prefixed "deflation" in my statement with "price-".
Cheers!
Jon Irenicus:Explain, don't waffle. So far you seem to be an idiot savant, who cannot deal with real economics
From what I can make out of the site, which has precious little hard information, a lot of this seems to be based on an objective theory of value. So right from the start it's going nowhere.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
Jon Irenicus: The only desirable *exchange* between producers *is* to exchange equal measures of production for the production of others. Why? Desirable for whom? How have you proven this? You haven't justified usury, which is coercive cost attached to our promises to pay each other. Instead, you have proven you're the cause of failure under multiplying debt. He has. There is nothing "coercive" about it. Moreover, the "entrepreneur" cannot as you assert, be trading current money for future gain: Against the hope of succeeding, the entrepreneur is coerced to take on an obligation which can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation until inevitable collapse -- which makes "future gain" ever less possible, and ultimately impossible. Explain, don't waffle. So far you seem to be an idiot savant, who cannot deal with real economics but only in equations with little to no bearing on reality. -Jon
I see you are an idiot without savante.
If you are a human who does not desire an equal measure of others' work in trade for yours, you are one of the few to claim so -- even as that's probably a lie as well. But it certainly stands to reason that even two idiots who want more than their work in exchange for each others' can only eventually agree that the only equitable solution is an equal trade.
Nice to be dealing with the anti-Christ today; but I think since so litlle is to be accomplished among idiots, that I'll leave you idiots to yourselves now -- remembering of course what makes Misis org and the Austrian "mind" tick.
What silliness. I only exchange something when I expect to gain something more valuable to me (than the thing I'm trading away) in return. The labour theory of value has gone the way of the dodo, if you are not already aware. No exchange takes place between things of "equal" value.
I'm not sure what problem of interest you are referring to. If you are referring to the P/P+I problem of mounting debt, then this is because money is created as debt, by central banks, and commercial banks. If you do not understand how money creation occurs, read Huerto de Soto. The only reason people use the ever-debasing dollar is because of legal tender. If currencies were free to compete, the ever rising mountain of debt would not happen. You cannot solve government intervention by more government intervention.
Besides, you should realise that in a non-increasing supply of money, interest rates can never exceed rise in the goods and services within an economy, and thus price-deflation, or the appreciation of the currency, offsets any interest rate problem that may occur.
While you're at it, please point to your refutation of the Austrian double inequality of exchange concept, and also to your refutation of subjective value. If you cannot provide this information, then every single mathematical derivation you create will be at best an approximation, and at worst a very dangerous error.
If you try to trick the market, it will get its revenge.
Solreyus
mike montagne: JackCuyler: mike montagne:Also then, how to do you refute the proposition of a singular solution to inflation and deflation, or perpetual multiplication of debt by interest? I've actually still haven't been given a satisfactory reason as to what is wrong with deflaion and why there needs to be a "solution". Deflation is a *good thing*. Oh, so because you can't refute solution, deflation is a good thing?
JackCuyler: mike montagne:Also then, how to do you refute the proposition of a singular solution to inflation and deflation, or perpetual multiplication of debt by interest? I've actually still haven't been given a satisfactory reason as to what is wrong with deflaion and why there needs to be a "solution". Deflation is a *good thing*.
mike montagne:Also then, how to do you refute the proposition of a singular solution to inflation and deflation, or perpetual multiplication of debt by interest?
I've actually still haven't been given a satisfactory reason as to what is wrong with deflaion and why there needs to be a "solution". Deflation is a *good thing*.
Oh, so because you can't refute solution, deflation is a good thing?
I apologize for not prefixing "deflation" with "price-". Price-deflation is a good thing. A stable money supply, one that does not continually increase or decrease is a good thing.
That being said, I am puzzed by this question. I'm not attempting to refute your solution, I'm question the need for a solution. That is, can you define the problem, and tell me why it's a problem? What is wrong with a stable, or as close to stable as possible, money supply? Why does the money supply need to increase with the overall wealth?
Money is a medium of exchange, nothing more. Like anything else, it is only valuable because it is valued. Too many people reverse that and assume it is valued because of some inherent value. Nothing is inherrently valuable.
Back to your question. What would cause all of the money to disappear? Your question is beyond hypothetical.
mike montagne:It's just fine, because you don't see the problem of ever less money all the while competing to service ever greater debt, while at the same time, more of every unit of currency is dedicated to servicing debt, versus sustaining the commerce which is compelled to service the debt or fail?
This assumes, incorrectly, that each piece of money is only spent once. Once a debt is paid, or partially paid, the money used to pay said debt is not used up. Rather, it is spent or invested.
Let me make you a simple example. Let's say I am a producer of hats, and you are a producer of apples. I produce two hats, and you produce two apples. When I exchange my second hat for your second apple, clearly I do so because I have no need for a second hat, while I could certainly enjoy an apple. You of course, feel the same. Thus you value my hat more than your second apple, and vice versa.
The labour theory of value is false, and I'll give you two simple examples. First, the value of a diamond on the market in no way corresponds to the amount of effort it takes to obtain them, there are enormous profits. Secondly, cars to you on a deserted island when what you really need is food and water, become worthless, even if a huge amount of labour went into creating them. In both cases, we see that value is built upon a combination of demand and supply and not how much labour was put in.
Thirdly, what does the anti-Christ have to do with this? Some people here are Christians, others are not. The only thing you could call us is anti-government, but then there are some minarchists here too, so that wouldn't be very precise. Besides, do you really thing that you're insulting atheists and agnostics by calling them anti-christs? I recommend you read Nietzsche's book by the same name, to see what he thinks of your little label.
Laslty, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and your continuous employment of it, while simultaneously calling others idiots, is rather funny at the least, and downright stupid at the worst.
mike montagne:it certainly stands to reason that even two idiots who want more than their work in exchange for each others' can only eventually agree that the only equitable solution is an equal trade.
It's trivial to prove that, if that were true, then no exchanges would ever take place, and we'd indeed have a "Mathematically Perfected Economy". Zero. Animal existence. Which is what socialists really want.
Inflation is beneficial to debtors. Deflation is beneficial to lendors. The market doesn't play favorites.
Mike just happens to have very strong ideas about who he wants to win.
mike montagne:I see you are an idiot without savante.
I love it when people can discuss ideas without resorting to name calling....
mike montagne:If you are a human who does not desire an equal measure of others' work in trade for yours, you are one of the few to claim so -- even as that's probably a lie as well. But it certainly stands to reason that even two idiots who want more than their work in exchange for each others' can only eventually agree that the only equitable solution is an equal trade.
Nonsense. I am a human who desires a good bargain. I like it when things go on sale. I want something worth more to me than what I am exchanging. Luckily for me, others' values are different than mine. That's how I can buy a sandwich at the deli for a few dollars. I value the sandwich more than the dollars. The deli owner values the dollars more than the sandwich. Hence, we both come out ahead, in our own estimations. It's not an equal trade; I am happier with the sandwhich than I was with the money.
Hey, don't forget, he has cute little equations to prove it!
JonBostwick: Even ignoring his methods, this guy is completely wrong. "Austrian Economics" — a purported discipline which itself does not even claim to solve the problems before us, and which in fact advocates the very things which are the cause of our problems... namely, "interest," and unearned gain. Let me ask everyone something: "Inflation" and "deflation" are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per related production. That is, the proper/traditional definition of inflation is an increase in circulation per the very things for which so much currency was introduced to circulation. It has *always* *only been theoretical* that "inflation" *caused* increasing prices. In all the pseudo sciences of purported "economics," there is no proof and no formal theorem which establishes that "inflation" engenders increasing costs. So, before I ask my question, let me say first that I can and have proved this unqualified proposition wrong; and that the story of my first spewing forth of the inadvertent contrarian proposition best puts the questions at hand in their deserved context, because they are the very questions every student, the teacher, and their teacher before and so forth should have asked. Please commence to ignore.
Even ignoring his methods, this guy is completely wrong.
"Austrian Economics" — a purported discipline which itself does not even claim to solve the problems before us, and which in fact advocates the very things which are the cause of our problems... namely, "interest," and unearned gain.
Let me ask everyone something:
"Inflation" and "deflation" are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per related production. That is, the proper/traditional definition of inflation is an increase in circulation per the very things for which so much currency was introduced to circulation. It has *always* *only been theoretical* that "inflation" *caused* increasing prices. In all the pseudo sciences of purported "economics," there is no proof and no formal theorem which establishes that "inflation" engenders increasing costs.
So, before I ask my question, let me say first that I can and have proved this unqualified proposition wrong; and that the story of my first spewing forth of the inadvertent contrarian proposition best puts the questions at hand in their deserved context, because they are the very questions every student, the teacher, and their teacher before and so forth should have asked.
Please commence to ignore.
Haha, that guy is a tool. If he really wants empirical proof, maybe he should pick up Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose." Or if he just wants common sense, maybe he should learn what a supply and demand curve is.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Several points most have been made already:
1. Exchanges to be mutually beneficial are not equal. I value what I am receiving more than what I am losing. The other part feels the same. Otherwise there is no reason to conduct the exchange.
2. Usury if agreed to by the lender and debtor IS NOT COERSIVE as the lender and debtor AGREED TO IT, otherwise there would be no agreement.
3. The entrepeneur has to make economic calculations about the future. The entrepeneur values the future return on their enterprise over the cost of using property (money) from somebody else.
4. I do not know why my logic is stupid? It only seems rational that entrepeneurs value future returns over usury fees. Otherwise the entrepeneur would be limited in the available money (capital) to what they have previously earned.
Apparently I'm evil for charging interest when people ask for loans...
Somehow, I "double charged" my friend for the agreement we had that lending him $200 would result in repayment worth $250
Taking advantage of the situation when advantages arise does not make people bad - it makes them smart.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
mike montagne: Oh, so because you can't refute solution, deflation is a good thing?
There is no solution in a computation, only output.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
So I can't help but notice the guy's disappeared. I hope you'll be coming back, oh great computationer. You've been a source of entertainment here...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap