| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] Definition of inflation | | Date: | Tuesday, February 14, 2006 20:19:48 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3399 (written by Daniel Morin) |
Seems simple enough to me. If they go down, that is deflation, but it is
exceedingly rare without some unusual circumstance, except in the case of price
takers, i.e. primary industry. If the overall movement over time is up, that is
inflation.
Most of industry is structured so that prices can not come down to any great
extent except through bankruptcy. At least where there is competition. This is
one of the fallacies in socialist argument, where the businessman is seen as the
big bad exploiter, not just someone else trying to exist in a lousy financial
system.
Regards. John R.
From: "Daniel Morin" <dan@danmorin.com>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Subject: RE:
[socialcredit] Definition of inflation
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:53:39 -0500
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Discover fun and games at XtraMSN Kids!
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message