Inflation is NOT theft?

Reply

John James replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 3:02 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin:

OK, let’s summarize it even more. Would inflation in a free (legal tender-less) monetary system be theft? If you say ‘no’, than this is all I’m arguing. If you say 'yes', do say more because I'd find that position very peculiar indeed.

Depends on what you mean by "inflation."

P.S.

I take this to mean you're not able to explain what "money behaves" means?

Reply

Merlin replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 3:46 AM

rated by 0 users

John James:

I take this to mean you're not able to explain what "money behaves" means?

 

If it somehow pleases you (I suspect it does), be my guest. But the thing is that I tend to grow impatient with posts that escalate into page-long things, especially when these are beside the point being discussed. So, if you like, we can go into the discussion of what I mean by the ‘behavior’ of money, but I really think it would not do too much good.

John James:

Depends on what you mean by "inflation."

 

I myself consider ‘inflation’ to be any increase in the supply of money. I have seen stranger definitions, but the point I’m trying to make revolves around this one.

When I argue that inflation is not necessarily theft (legal tender always is, of course, but we all agreed on that point), I argue that we cannot know whether the money freely selected on a free monetary market would, by the definition I use, inflate. In other words, inflation could happen in a free market, and I really do not see how on earth that could be defined as theft. Hence, we cannot say that ‘inflation is theft’.

So, I think we have been misunderstanding each other. A pity, if my point was originally put as clearly as I think it was.

Reply

John James replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 4:38 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin:

I myself consider ‘inflation’ to be any increase in the supply of money. I have seen stranger definitions,

Does that mean you find your definition strange?

When I argue that inflation is not necessarily theft (legal tender always is, of course, but we all agreed on that point), I argue that we cannot know whether the money freely selected on a free monetary market would, by the definition I use, inflate. In other words, inflation could happen in a free market, and I really do not see how on earth that could be defined as theft. Hence, we cannot say that ‘inflation is theft’.

No I understood you just fine...and that's why I'm having such a good time watching you avoid my question from two pages ago.  And that's why I'll ask it again: So...if "If we assume [a single currency], it would make sense to speak of inflation as ‘stealing’", please explain how in our current system of a single currency, inflation is not stealing.

If it somehow pleases you (I suspect it does), be my guest.

Be your guest to what?

Reply

Merlin replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 5:13 AM

rated by 0 users

John James:

Does that mean you find your definition strange?

 

It surely is not what is generally understood by inflation.

John James:

No I understood you just fine...and that's why I'm having such a good time watching you avoid my question from two pages ago.  And that's why I'll ask it again: So...if "If we assume [a single currency], it would make sense to speak of inflation as ‘stealing’", please explain how in our current system of a single currency, inflation is not stealing.

 

I imagine you know that you do not own the right to print dollars, and if you did you would be rightfully prosecuted for fraud.

But if you do not own the right to manage the dollar, than you must surely have signed a contract that entitles you to ‘zero inflation’ or something like that. Who promised you, contractually speaking, that the dollar (or any other fiat currency) would not inflate? Can you show me such a clause in whatever contract you sighed?

But if you neither own the right to manage the dollar, nor have any contractual right to have its owners manage it as you think it should, that how can you claim that by inflating the dollar you are being stolen from? Do tell me, please.

Again, the issue is that the state forces people to accept dollars, and that is stealing. But besides that inflation is not stealing. It’s just a policy the benefit or cost of which we cannot rationally calculate as we’re forced to submit to it.

Can we say that the legal monopoly subway of some city steals form us because it runs its trains until midnight and no later? No, we can say that it steals form us by forbidding any competition. That aside, it makes no sense to say anything about the policy which the monopoly follows. That we know nothing of the effects of such a policy is precisely the point.

John James:

Be your guest to what?

  

There was a quoted phrase of yours in response to which I wrote this. You may want to consult it for the answer you’re looking for.

Reply

John James replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 5:37 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin:

Again, the issue is that the state forces people to accept dollars, and that is stealing.

You're going to have to define stealing then.  Because I fail to see how forcing you to accept something is "aggressive seizure of property" (the definition previously given in this thread).

Besides that, I fail to see how any of this addresses the question.

You literally said "If we assume [a single currency], it would make sense to speak of inflation as ‘stealing’".  We don't have to "assume" a single currency.  We have a single currency.  So once again, please explain how in our current system of a single currency, inflation is not stealing.

There was a quoted phrase of yours in response to which I wrote this. You may want to consult it for the answer you’re looking for.

You mean be your guest to take your total dodge of my questions to mean that you can't answer them?  Is that what you meant?

Reply

Merlin replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 5:55 AM

rated by 0 users

John James:

You're going to have to define stealing then.  Because I fail to see how forcing you to accept something is "aggressive seizure of property" (the definition previously given in this thread).

True, I use inappropriate terms at times. I should have considered that aggression, not stealing. My apologies.

John James:

You literally said "If we assume [a single currency], it would make sense to speak of inflation as ‘stealing’".  We don't have to "assume" a single currency.  We have a single currency.  So once again, please explain how in our current system of a single currency, inflation is not stealing.

 

Are you referring to this?

The argument there would seem to hinge on the assumption that, on a legal tender-less market, money of a strictly unchanged supply would obviously displace all the others.

If we assume as much, it would make sense to speak of inflation as ‘stealing’. But the issue with legal tender is precisely that we cannot know what kind of money would be preferred in a free market, so we cannot say for sure that inflation is stealing.

You do realize that you completely misunderstood that phrase, (and it was not that easy to misunderstand), do you?

What I write very clearly is that if we assume that in a free market inflation would never occur…, not that we have a single currency! You may want to be more careful with those parentheses next time.

But if you are quoting at some other point, please tell me.

John James:

You mean be your guest to take your total dodge of my questions to mean that you can't answer them?  Is that what you meant?

 

Hey there, not that hard, was it?

Reply

John James replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 6:55 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin:

True, I use inappropriate terms at times. I should have considered that aggression, not stealing. My apologies.

Well hell.  You've been arguing for two pages that forcing people to accept something equates to "stealing"...and now we come to find out you just use random words when you mean something completely different?

Are you sure you even have a disagreement here?

But if you are quoting at some other point, please tell me.

Nope.  That was it.  Perhaps you could have made that clarification when it was brought up a page or so ago.  Now perhaps you can answer the original one:

How is "increasing one's wealth at another's expense" is not stealing?

Hey there, not that hard, was it?

Is that supposed to be a "yes, I was referring to my dodging of your questions"?

Reply

Merlin replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 7:37 AM

rated by 0 users

John James:

Well hell.  You've been arguing for two pages that forcing people to accept something equates to "stealing"...and now we come to find out you just use random words when you mean something completely different?

 

Ah, but this is unwarranted. Note that my argument never relied on considering legal tender ‘theft’. That was an unfortunate and probably annoying slip of tongue, but of no consequence whatever to the argument. Unlike, say, misquoting some guy and then ignoring every argument he brings forth until the misquote is rescued. That could have been a more noteworthy slip, wouldn’t you say?

John James:

Nope.  That was it.  Perhaps you could have made that clarification when it was brought up a page or so ago.  Now perhaps you can answer the original one:

How is "increasing one's wealth at another's expense" is not stealing?

You cannot be serious. Have the last posts been absolutely ignored? If you find some other unexplainable quote or an otherwise disagreeable point in those earlier posts (which clarify this precise point), then I’ll be happy to discuss those with you. But to rewrite everything form scratch? You just cannot be serious.  

John James:

 Is that supposed to be a "yes, I was referring to my dodging of your questions"?

 

To repeat myself, indulge yourself if it suits you tastes.

John James:

Are you sure you even have a disagreement here?

 

It may indeed be wise to think about this point carefully. I really think we don’t.  

Reply

John James replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 9:23 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin:

John James:

Well hell.  You've been arguing for two pages that forcing people to accept something equates to "stealing"...and now we come to find out you just use random words when you mean something completely different?

Ah, but this is unwarranted. Note that my argument never relied on considering legal tender ‘theft’.

No one said it did.  My point is that if you have an admitted habit of just using random words when you mean something completely different, we can't really be sure of anything you've been saying the whole time, because evidently it will continue until someone stumbles upon it by asking enough questions and then forcing you to realize you didn't really mean what you said.

You cannot be serious. Have the last posts been absolutely ignored? If you find some other unexplainable quote or an otherwise disagreeable point in those earlier posts (which clarify this precise point), then I’ll be happy to discuss those with you. But to rewrite everything form scratch? You just cannot be serious.

I'm quite serious.  I have no idea where you think you answered that question.  Perhaps you could just copy and paste the answer if you've already typed some explication out.  You typed one completely confused case anthropomorphising money, then when I asked you to explain it, you ignored the request and instead asked a question and claimed you simplified your previous post.

So you can either allege one of those posts is actually an answer to the question "How is 'increasing one's wealth at another's expense' is not stealing?" and explain it, or you can actually give an actual answer.

To repeat myself, indulge yourself if it suits you tastes.

That's not an answer.  Are you sure you understand the nature of "question" and "answer"?

Reply

Merlin replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 9:57 AM

rated by 0 users

OK than, let’s do it again. Careful not to misquote something else below.

To see whether inflation itself inherently constitutes theft, let us separate it from legal tender, which we all agree constitutes aggression.

Would the issuer of a freely accepted inflating currency in a free monetary market be ‘increasing [his] wealth at [his customer’s] expense’ through such inflation? Only to the degree that the local baker, when raising his prices, is ‘increasing [his] wealth at [his customer’s] expense’.

If these constitute instances of theft for you, than you have at least not wasted my time for nothing on a debate in which we agreed.  

Reply

John James replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 10:07 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin:

OK than, let’s do it again. Careful not to misquote something else below.

To see whether inflation itself inherently constitutes theft, let us separate it from legal tender, which we all agree constitutes aggression.

Would the issuer of a freely accepted inflating currency in a free monetary market be ‘increasing [his] wealth at [his customer’s] expense’ through such inflation? Only to the degree that the local baker, when raising his prices, is ‘increasing [his] wealth at [his customer’s] expense’.

If these constitute instances of theft for you, than you have at least not wasted my time for nothing on a debate in which we agreed.

So...essentially, you're saying you can't demonstrate how 'increasing one's wealth at another's expense' is not stealing...yes?

I don't even know why you keep bothering trying to fit "inflation" "legal tender laws" "free monetary market" into your answer.  It's completely irrelevant.  Just explain how 'increasing one's wealth at another's expense' is not stealing.  If you can't, or you agree that 'increasing one's wealth at another's expense' is stealing, then just admit it already.

Reply

Merlin replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 10:16 AM

rated by 0 users

This is way past childish. Since I now know that you are prone to weaseling away the real point with words, let me assure myself again this new silly contraption of yours:

It depends on what you mean by ‘at the expense of…’

Is the baker above doing this? if yes, it is not stealing, and neither is inflation (the whole point of the thread).

I've made my case several times by now, and you’ve tested my patience enough.

Reply

John James replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 10:53 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin:

It depends on what you mean by ‘at the expense of…’

I have no problem explaining what is meant by that.  "At the expense of" in that context refers to one person gaining while causing an involuntary loss on the part of someone else.

So, if you please, how is 'increasing one's wealth by causing an involuntary loss on the part of someone else' not stealing?

Reply

Clayton replied on Mon, Mar 19 2012 1:34 PM

rated by 0 users

Oh, so you assume that all producers will produce money substitutes, pyramiding on top of some base ‘hard’ money.

No, I assume that humans act and from this it follows that money is the most marketable good which was originally a non-money good among many non-money goods. Even fiat monies - which can supposedly be created by governments at will - are subject to the regression theorem.

I see no reason to take that for granted. A producer could just produce money pyramiding on top of nothing, just like the dollar.

Not without some kind of monopoly on money production or equivalent legal super-privilege (e.g. legal tender status).

Would inflation in that case be theft? Would it be impossible?  

The case itself is impossible.

Clayton -