Blame Congress for Inflation

AssHatZombie said:
I think the fascists are intentionally trying to redefine the meaning of inflation so they can reduce public knowledge of the impact fiat currency on the economy, so they can maintain their little fascistic money making scam.
Click to expand...

I think you are a moron who has no comprehension of the fact that economics has always defined inflation as a general rise in the price of a basket of goods. It is pure monetarists and idiots like you that are attempting to redefine the term inflation to limit it to JUST changes due to monetary policy.
 
Superfreak said:
I obviously beg to differ. Obfuscate is a Friedman disciple.... one who claims to understand there are a variety of economic theorists out there, yet who follows blindly behind Friedman.

Perhaps you would care to explain what Obfuscate and Asshat refuse to do...

How do you explain the inflation in costs of goods/services that is NOT due to monetary policy? Or do you proclaim as they do that price increases really aren't inflationary unless they are due to monetary policy and that the remainder of price increases really aren't increases?
Click to expand...

I'm not an economist but IMHO inflation should refer only to price increases influenced by monetary policy.

You're both beating your heads against a wall because you have differing definitions of inflation. Which makes sense, since competing schools have different explanations for what causes inflation. It's probably not something that's going to be reconciled on this board.

Either you believe the assumptions of the monetarist view, or you don't. Much like you would believe the liberal dogma that gun control reduces violence, or you wouldn't. It's an area of legitimate disagreement where your assumptions will profoundly influence your perception of other issues.
 
Superfreak said:
I think you are a moron who has no comprehension of the fact that economics has always defined inflation as a general rise in the price of a basket of goods. It is pure monetarists and idiots like you that are attempting to redefine the term inflation to limit it to JUST changes due to monetary policy.
Click to expand...

No. General rises in price can be due to OTHER FACTORS THAT ARE NOT INFLATION.
 
Every time superfreak says "basket of goods" like a giant fag, I picture him heading off to grandma's house in his little red riding hood.
 
Epicurus said:
I'm not an economist but IMHO inflation should refer only to price increases influenced by monetary policy.

You're both beating your heads against a wall because you have differing definitions of inflation. Which makes sense, since competing schools have different explanations for what causes inflation. It's probably not something that's going to be reconciled on this board.

Either you believe the assumptions of the monetarist view, or you don't. Much like you would believe the liberal dogma that gun control reduces violence, or you wouldn't. It's an area of legitimate disagreement where your assumptions will profoundly influence your perception of other issues.
Click to expand...

That is where you are incorrect. Unless you are taking a course that is purely Friedman, then you are exposed to varying economic theory. No school that I am aware of teaches that inflation is strictly the increase in prices that are a result of monetary policy. None. That is only something that a pure monetarist would teach or preach. Not even Friedman stated that.

His difference with the Keynes was with regard to what the primary force in inflation was.

Inflation is a rise in the prices of a general basket of goods. To ignore price increases and act as though they are not inflationary simply because they were caused by a force other than monetary policy is idiotic and it is NOT practiced by anyone. Only a rube with a clear lack of comprehension of the course material would make a statement that monetary policy was the sole cause.

Take a look at Obfuscates recent post where he finally correctly stated that it was the MAIN reason.... not the SOLE reason.
 
Superfreak said:
That is where you are incorrect. Unless you are taking a course that is purely Friedman, then you are exposed to varying economic theory. No school that I am aware of teaches that inflation is strictly the increase in prices that are a result of monetary policy. None. That is only something that a pure monetarist would teach or preach. Not even Friedman stated that.

His difference with the Keynes was with regard to what the primary force in inflation was.

Inflation is a rise in the prices of a general basket of goods. To ignore price increases and act as though they are not inflationary simply because they were caused by a force other than monetary policy is idiotic and it is NOT practiced by anyone. Only a rube with a clear lack of comprehension of the course material would make a statement that monetary policy was the sole cause.

Take a look at Obfuscates recent post where he finally correctly stated that it was the MAIN reason.... not the SOLE reason.
Click to expand...


Admitting it's a separate reason is admitting the reality of my definition, or excuse me, THE defintion.
 
Superfreak said:
How do you explain the inflation in costs of goods/services that is NOT due to monetary policy?
Click to expand...


Find me one case in history where we've had inflation without an increase in the money supply. If it's true you should be able to cite examples. Don't explain that some good or service increased. How did Japan have inflation rates of 30% during the oil embargo and go down to 5% inflation during that time? Why did the supposed inflation of the 70's that was supposedly because of oil and OPEC get eliminated? Volcker tightened the money supply, if fact he used Monetary TARGETS dictate policy and we went from mid teens inflation to 4%.

"Inflation results when the amount of money printed or coined increases faster than the creation of new goods and services"

Friedman
 
Epicurus said:
I'm not an economist but IMHO inflation should refer only to price increases influenced by monetary policy.
Click to expand...

Side note Epi.... WHY would you state the bolded portion????

What possible justification could you have for counting only a portion of price increases in inflation?
 
Superfreak said:
Epicurus said:
I'm not an economist but IMHO inflation should refer only to price increases influenced by monetary policy.

Side note Epi.... WHY would you state the bolded portion????

What possible justification could you have for counting only a portion of price increases in inflation?
Click to expand...
Because inflation specifically means "that component of a price increase that is due to monetary supply."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Superfreak said:
Take a look at Obfuscates recent post where he finally correctly stated that it was the MAIN reason.... not the SOLE reason.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? If I did it was a slip, real inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply faster than the growth of goods as the Friedman quote I just stated.
 
Obfuscate said:
Find me one case in history where we've had inflation without an increase in the money supply. If it's true you should be able to cite examples. Don't explain that some good or service increased. How did Japan have inflation rates of 30% during the oil embargo and go down to 5% inflation during that time? Why did the supposed inflation of the 70's that was supposedly because of oil and OPEC get eliminated? Volcker tightened the money supply, if fact he used Monetary TARGETS dictate policy and we went from mid teens inflation to 4%.

"Inflation results when the amount of money printed or coined increases faster than the creation of new goods and services"

Friedman
Click to expand...

My God you are an ignorant twit....

AGAIN.... AS I STATED.... MONETARY POLICY IS THE PRIMARY FORCE BEHIND INFLATION. BUT IT IS NOT THE SOLE FORCE.

IT EXACERBATES INFLATIONARY PRESSURES WHEN TOO LOOSE. BUT IT IS NOT THE SOLE DRIVER OF INFLATION YOU MORON. Likewise, when used as Volcker did, it can reduce the effects of inflation. Which is exactly what I have stated time and again.

But it does not account for ALL inflation. If it did, the Fed would be able to keep inflation at zero by the use of monetary policy. (assuming of course they did what they needed to do).

You continue to try and paint a strawman by acting as though I am suggesting inflation in the past has been absent of all monetary influences. This is most certainly not the case as the Fed has been screwing with the system since its creation.
 
"The rise in energy is mainly money inflation since 2001"

Obfuscate... you posted the above earlier. It was the first time you have been correct on this thread. Don't be so quick to disavow it.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It really is just a basic language lesson that superfreak needs.
Click to expand...

"Many economists believe that high rates of inflation are caused by high rates of growth of the money supply.[2] Views on the factors that determine moderate rates of inflation are more varied: changes in inflation are sometimes attributed to fluctuations in real demand for goods and services or in available supplies (i.e. changes in scarcity), and sometimes to changes in the supply or demand for money."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top