|
> Thus, and from
a scientist's point of view a useful definition of inflation that would be
axiomatic and acceptable to all is:
> Inflation: A
continued rise of overall price levels within a period of time.
I
disagree. What you mean by "continued"? This term is quite a
vague. Prices go up and down all the time. Is a day or a week counts
as a "continued rise" or you need a month, a quarter or a
year? The next thing is what do you mean by "overall"? This
term is even more vague. Do you mean the "Core Inflation" or the "Overall
Inflation". Remember all the time the medias talk about "Inflation", the
refer to the Core Inflation, which excludes housing, energy and food costs
(basically everything significant). As a result, the Core Inflation may go
down while the "Overall Inflation" goes up. This fetish number
is highly massaged to please the politicians so they look good while in
office. Who decides what goes in the "basket" to compute the "overall"
price of goods & services within a period of time? Now, we
have a definition according to some arbitrary basket of goods and services.
Also, if you have an increase of price level of 0.0000001%, does that
count as "inflation" according to your definition?
You
make a lousy scientist from my point of view.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Gauvin
[mailto:gauvin@wanadoo.es]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 5:13
AM
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Definition of inflation
All,
It is clear that those who accept the quoted
webster definition are not qualified to discuss money matters. Why?
Because, inlfation is treated axiomatically in the pseudo science of
"economics" and therefore must be complete
and self contained i.e.self evident. Introducing a theory requiring
proof cannot be part of such an axiomatic definition particularly
when such a definition is so debated by its proponents.
Thus, and from a scientist's point of view a
useful definition of inflation that would be axiomatic and acceptable to all
is:
Inflation: A continued rise of overall price
levels within a period of time.
This is consistent with reality irrespective of
what causes it. As for what causes it, the following is certainly and
indisputably a candidate:
Cause of Inflation: A continued rise of
overall debt beyond available pruchasing power.
Such has certainly been the case in our recent
and foolish history. Anyone who argues otherwise, is reckless and
irresponsible given that inflation is the Prima Facie tool for
maintaining poverty in the face of potential abundance. This tool
regulates the gradient of need between abject poverty and
exhorbitant wealth whereby the probability of sinking into poverty is greater
than that of gravitating towards wealth. I.e it is stealing from the
rich to give to the poor using the pen or keyboard that writes financial
policy.
Of course, there are many ways to play such a
tool, for example one can use deficit financing to obfuscate the simple
underlying truth, a rather effective way to dupe proponents of such flimsy
definitions as the above quoted webster's definition.
Best,
Marc
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:01
AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Definition
of inflation
Before making your own definition of inflation to fit your A+B model,
here is the definition of Inflation according to my Webster
Dictionary:
"An increase in the volume of money and
credit relative to available goods and services resulting in a continuing
rise in the general price level."
Source: Webster Collegial Dictionary, 1996.
First, define inflation. Invariably, it is measured as "rising
prices", which therefore that is my, and I think our Party's,
definition of it. It may be caused by "too much money ...", when it
is "demand-pull inflation", or by other factors (e.g. rising oil prices or
higher interest rates) when it is "cost-push inflation".
And, once again, the A+B model postulates as a corollary that we have
cost-push inflation more than demand-pull. "There are factors in the
economy (B costs) that push the cost of goods above the level of consumer
purchasing power." So of course economists who deny the Douglas analkysis
don't understand where inflation is coming from.
Regards. John R.
From: "W. McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Social Credit and Inflation--and related
issues
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:04:53 +1300
>Hi
Kenneth
> I had not really considered that question of
"inflation"
>as it operated in our economy, but was intrigued by
your comment that
>socalled "economic experts" have never produced
a really satisfactory answer
>as to why it happens. I find that,
on reflection, all their "explanations"
>appear to be waffle with
little or no substance to back up their comments.
>They are very
good at manipulating figures, but very short on
statisdtical
>analysis of those figures. They always have an
excuse as to why their
>forecasts are incorrect. My youngest
brother has a theory that inflation has
>nothing to do with money
or product availablity, but is the direct result of
>propaganda
perpetrated by banking organisations who encourage
price
>increases by simply stating that inflation is increasing
and prices must
>increase to compensate for it. They don't have to
state any reasons, but
>simply create an atmosphere whereby price
increases are accepted. Inflation,
>i.e. increased costs for goods
and services, follows on as a self-induced,
>self-fullfilling
prophesy. Effectively "inflation" is a mind set rather
>than an
economic consequence. I cannot see how this can be quantified, but
I
>can see the logic in his argument. It certainly explains the
"stagflation"
>phenomena where costs still increased despite
falling industrial production
>and increasing
unemployment.
> Bill Mc Gunnigle
>----- Original Message
-----
>From: "Kenneth Palmerton"
<kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
>To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
>Cc:
<kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
>Sent: Friday, February
10, 2006 5:40 AM
>Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Social Credit and
Inflation--and related issues
>
>
> > In-Reply-To:
<00aa01c62844$b0b3d320$6400a8c0@cdv73pbgpo6eny>
> > Hi
Wallace.
> >
> > For a very long time I have been of
the opinion that economists do NOT
> > understand "inflation".
Even their attempts to describe it, and offer a
> > definition
leave me much less than convinced of their competence.
>
>
> > They seem to offer no logical explanation of why
prices rise.
> >
> > I have sat with fellow directors
of a manufacturing company around our
> > board room table
looking at each other wondering if our competitors would
> >
let us get away with a price rise of our products.
> >
>
> This was not so much an exercise in maximising our profits, as
trying
> > desperately to cover our costs. This I believe is a
common scenario,
> > common to most companies in mature
markets.
> >
> > Coming to understand later the
rightness of A+B has helped, with its
> > reference to
purchasing power, which was the other thing we Directors
> >
agonised over. Would our customers have the money in their pockets
when
> > they chose our products ?
> >
> >
This enlightenment came too late for me and mine I fear :-))
>
>
> > Ken.
> >
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Some
introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are
at
>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>You're
subscribed to this list with the email
johngrawson@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Shop ‘til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email dan@danmorin.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email gauvin@wanadoo.es
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email dan@danmorin.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
