Interesting take on future tax etc...

Kohoutek

nearlynew wrote: »

Well for a start, your analogy assumes, incorrectly (as most people do) that inflation is caused by high prices. It is not.

Rising prices are a result of deliberately inflating the money supply.

But, generally speaking, prices only rise if inflation in the supply of money exceeds inflation in the supply of goods and services.

If the government wanted to, it could in theory set the inflation target to 0%, not 2%, by raising the price of money (interest rates) or raising capital requirements (to reduce the amount of credit-money outstanding). I think the main reason the government encourages at least some inflation if it set the target at 0%, it would be afraid that there wouldn't be enough new credit created in the economy for growth.

chucky

nearlynew wrote: »

Rising prices do not cause inflation.

let Google be your friend

Persistently rising general price levels brought about by rising input costs. In general, there are three factors that could contribute to cost-push inflation: rising wages, increases in corporate taxes, and imported inflation (when imported raw or partly-finished goods become more expensive, often as a result of currency depreciation).

For inflation to be cost-push in nature, increases in input prices must affect a large proportion of the country's producers, so as to be able to push up the general price level.

http://www.investorwords.com/1162/cost_push_inflation.html

nearlynew

chucky wrote: »

let Google be your friend

http://www.investorwords.com/1162/cost_push_inflation.html

In a word..........


bullsh1t

chucky

nearlynew wrote: »

In a word..........


bullsh1t

i never went to an Austrian school

nearlynew

Kohoutek wrote: »

But, generally speaking, prices only rise if inflation in the supply of money exceeds inflation in the supply of goods and services.

If the government wanted to, it could in theory set the inflation target to 0%, not 2%, by raising the price of money (interest rates) or raising capital requirements (to reduce the amount of credit-money outstanding). I think the main reason the government encourages at least some inflation if it set the target at 0%, it would be afraid that there wouldn't be enough new credit created in the economy for growth.

"Inflation" is the silent pick-pocket that allows the government to steal your money without you knowing.

"Growth" is a used in a way that suggests a healthy economy when in fact it means everyone has to borrow more money.


The people who benefit from this general ignorance of the public don't want you to know there is another way of running an economy.

A debt-based money supply is a con.
We do not need to borrow into existence our means of exchange and then pay interest on this money for the privilege.

And then when we do borrow it, we have to find all sorts of complicated ways of maintaining its value through investments otherwise it gets "eaten by inflation" - which was caused by having to borrow it in the first place.



Anyway, I'm off to the pub.

ninky_2

nearlynew wrote: »

"Inflation" is the silent pick-pocket that allows the government to steal your money without you knowing.

or pay off your debt / mortgage.

StevieJ

Harry_Powell wrote: »

<- Graham, AKA Mr. Muddle.

I can't believe that Really still falls for it! You might as well discuss nuclear physics with the fireplace for the sense you get out of discussing anything with Devon Muddle.

More like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhvAs5GsMPw

StevieJ

nearlynew wrote: »

Anyway, I'm off to the pub.

I wonder if he will talk more sense when he gets back

JonnyBravo

Exocet wrote: »

As soon as I saw you had posted on this thread I had a feeling we'd see the Mr. Muddle picture again.

It's a much happier picture than that worried ol' facepalm fella though innit?
Do you like that one too?

Exocet

JonnyBravo wrote: »

It's a much happier picture than that worried ol' facepalm fella though innit?
Do you like that one too?

Once, yes. More than once, no.