|
Continued: Means continued over a period, the
observer can decide whether the period is meaningful or not. Generally, when the
period is longer the more accurate is the measure.
Overall: Means average of everything thus there is
no pre-selected set of goods that you mention.
The proposed definition does not make any value
judgements and does not depend on theory which was the point I was
making.
You make an impolite person!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 5:53
PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Definition of
inflation
> 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 gauvin@wanadoo.es
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
