mcdonalds stores in the US cave to catholic demands..

kelly4

Well-Known Member
Here is a good Forbes article that explains the causes of inflation, note that the author states it is not caused by an increase of the money supply. I am using the definition of inflation that economists actually use today.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/30/what-actually-causes-inflation/

"I made a post two weeks ago in which I explained that the popular view of inflation (wherein it is caused by money growth) depends critically on assumptions that do not hold in the real world. Money comes into existence when someone adds it to her portfolio of assets. This occurs either when she borrows money (which creates new cash from reserves) or sells securities to the Federal Reserve (which injects new cash into the system). Neither of these scenarios allows the central bank to increase the supply of money beyond demand, the story told by those in the money growth ==> inflation camp. Instead, inflation happens first. This then means that agents need more cash for transactions, leading them to borrow more or sell government securities to the Fed. Thus, the money growth accompanies inflation, but it does not cause it. The original post can be found here:

Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
"
Same question...
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Here is a good Forbes article that explains the causes of inflation, note that the author states it is not caused by an increase of the money supply. I am using the definition of inflation that economists actually use today.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/30/what-actually-causes-inflation/

"I made a post two weeks ago in which I explained that the popular view of inflation (wherein it is caused by money growth) depends critically on assumptions that do not hold in the real world. Money comes into existence when someone adds it to her portfolio of assets. This occurs either when she borrows money (which creates new cash from reserves) or sells securities to the Federal Reserve (which injects new cash into the system). Neither of these scenarios allows the central bank to increase the supply of money beyond demand, the story told by those in the money growth ==> inflation camp. Instead, inflation happens first. This then means that agents need more cash for transactions, leading them to borrow more or sell government securities to the Fed. Thus, the money growth accompanies inflation, but it does not cause it. The original post can be found here:

Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
"
No one ever said it was caused by an increase in currency. All that was said is that an increase in currency is but one factor in the inflation equation.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Here is a good Forbes article that explains the causes of inflation, note that the author states it is not caused by an increase of the money supply. I am using the definition of inflation that economists actually use today.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/30/what-actually-causes-inflation/

"I made a post two weeks ago in which I explained that the popular view of inflation (wherein it is caused by money growth) depends critically on assumptions that do not hold in the real world. Money comes into existence when someone adds it to her portfolio of assets. This occurs either when she borrows money (which creates new cash from reserves) or sells securities to the Federal Reserve (which injects new cash into the system). Neither of these scenarios allows the central bank to increase the supply of money beyond demand, the story told by those in the money growth ==> inflation camp. Instead, inflation happens first. This then means that agents need more cash for transactions, leading them to borrow more or sell government securities to the Fed. Thus, the money growth accompanies inflation, but it does not cause it. The original post can be found here:

Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
"
How can inflation occur without an increase in the money supply?
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
I've seen this explained. The point was that 50 years ago a loaf of bread cost one quarter. Today it costs two dollars.

A quarter 50 years ago and two dollars today bought right around the same amount of silver.

So that was his argument that there was no inflation.

But that is exactly what inflation has always been.

It involves a lot of trickeration.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
I've seen this explained. The point was that 50 years ago a loaf of bread cost one quarter. Today it costs two dollars.

A quarter 50 years ago and two dollars today bought right around the same amount of silver.

So that was his argument that there was no inflation.

But that is exactly what inflation has always been.

It involves a lot of trickeration.
The reason silver has matched inflation/exceeded it is because it has a utility purpose as well as being a precious metal.

Using something that traditionally ignores inflation as an example inflation doesnt exist is intellectually dishonest.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
The reason silver has matched inflation/exceeded it is because it has a utility purpose as well as being a precious metal.

Using something that traditionally ignores inflation as an example inflation doesnt exist is intellectually dishonest.
I'm not saying I agreed with the example.

But he also compared it to gold.

He compared it to several things.

It was pretty cool how a lot of that stuff has remained stable with respect to amounts of gold/silver/oil/diamonds in dollar values still buys the same, more or less, loaves of bread.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying I agreed with the example.

But he also compared it to gold.

He compared it to several things.

It was pretty cool how a lot of that stuff has remained stable with respect to amounts of gold/silver/oil/diamonds in dollar values still buys the same, more or less, loaves of bread.
Itd be a damn shame to keep your future money in cash so, wouldn't it?
 
Top