No, mine is a universal definition which you can find in your dictionary. What’s more, your different cases exemplify your ignorance:
Yes, this is traditional inflation, just as I said; but it is only theoretical that it results in increasing prices. There is no formal proof or theorem of your assertion; and there is every reason to reject it because the asserted phenomenon suggests we simply price ourselves to death, sensing I suppose excessive circulation?
Sure.
According to definition, no, this is deflation; and again, it is only theoretical that price levels decrease; for at the same time related debt might so increase as to compel rising prices to cover necessary margins of solubility. So there are far more numbers to account for if your proposition is to hold water; and we disprove the potential of those numbers to account for your assertion on our home page.
As you could see everywhere you can look at the tracks I’ve left, I have never equated inflation to price inflation in my life. In fact, our home page tells a story in which I rejected the idea from the very first moment a teacher tried “teaching” it (merely asserting it, like you).
Then most Austrians would be responsible for the system which is failing us.
Individuals don’t get to choose the conditions of their exchanges. They’re dictated to us by usurping representation. What intelligent public in fact would ever choose to impose upon itself a system which can only multiply debt to collapse under terminal sums of insoluble debt? No intelligent public ever has; and none ever will.
No, neither am I suggesting you would comprise an “intelligent” public.
You have that system; and it is only because you can hardly offer even a true fact, that you relegate yourself to making such bizarre claims. If you knew your material and offered principles, intelligent people would make the deduction from what you lay before them.
Why? Desirable for whom? How have you proven this?
He has. There is nothing “coercive” about it.
Explain, don’t waffle. So far you seem to be an idiot savant, who cannot deal with real economics but only in equations with little to no bearing on reality.
From what I can make out of the site, which has precious little hard information, a lot of this seems to be based on an objective theory of value. So right from the start it’s going nowhere.
If you are a human who does not desire an equal measure of others’ work in trade for yours, you are one of the few to claim so – even as that’s probably a lie as well. But it certainly stands to reason that even two idiots who want more than their work in exchange for each others’ can only eventually agree that the only equitable solution is an equal trade.
Nice to be dealing with the anti-Christ today; but I think since so litlle is to be accomplished among idiots, that I’ll leave you idiots to yourselves now – remembering of course what makes Misis org and the Austrian “mind” tick.
What silliness. I only exchange something when I expect to gain something more valuable to me (than the thing I’m trading away) in return. The labour theory of value has gone the way of the dodo, if you are not already aware. No exchange takes place between things of “equal” value.
I’m not sure what problem of interest you are referring to. If you are referring to the P/P+I problem of mounting debt, then this is because money is created as debt, by central banks, and commercial banks. If you do not understand how money creation occurs, read Huerto de Soto. The only reason people use the ever-debasing dollar is because of legal tender. If currencies were free to compete, the ever rising mountain of debt would not happen. You cannot solve government intervention by more government intervention.
Besides, you should realise that in a non-increasing supply of money, interest rates can never exceed rise in the goods and services within an economy, and thus price-deflation, or the appreciation of the currency, offsets any interest rate problem that may occur.
While you’re at it, please point to your refutation of the Austrian double inequality of exchange concept, and also to your refutation of subjective value. If you cannot provide this information, then every single mathematical derivation you create will be at best an approximation, and at worst a very dangerous error.
I apologize for not prefixing “deflation” with “price-”. Price-deflation is a good thing. A stable money supply, one that does not continually increase or decrease is a good thing.
That being said, I am puzzed by this question. I’m not attempting to refute your solution, I’m question the need for a solution. That is, can you define the problem, and tell me why it’s a problem? What is wrong with a stable, or as close to stable as possible, money supply? Why does the money supply need to increase with the overall wealth?
Money is a medium of exchange, nothing more. Like anything else, it is only valuable because it is valued. Too many people reverse that and assume it is valued because of some inherent value. Nothing is inherrently valuable.
Back to your question. What would cause all of the money to disappear? Your question is beyond hypothetical.
This assumes, incorrectly, that each piece of money is only spent once. Once a debt is paid, or partially paid, the money used to pay said debt is not used up. Rather, it is spent or invested.
Let me make you a simple example. Let’s say I am a producer of hats, and you are a producer of apples. I produce two hats, and you produce two apples. When I exchange my second hat for your second apple, clearly I do so because I have no need for a second hat, while I could certainly enjoy an apple. You of course, feel the same. Thus you value my hat more than your second apple, and vice versa.
The labour theory of value is false, and I’ll give you two simple examples. First, the value of a diamond on the market in no way corresponds to the amount of effort it takes to obtain them, there are enormous profits. Secondly, cars to you on a deserted island when what you really need is food and water, become worthless, even if a huge amount of labour went into creating them. In both cases, we see that value is built upon a combination of demand and supply and not how much labour was put in.
Thirdly, what does the anti-Christ have to do with this? Some people here are Christians, others are not. The only thing you could call us is anti-government, but then there are some minarchists here too, so that wouldn’t be very precise. Besides, do you really thing that you’re insulting atheists and agnostics by calling them anti-christs? I recommend you read Nietzsche’s book by the same name, to see what he thinks of your little label.
Laslty, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and your continuous employment of it, while simultaneously calling others idiots, is rather funny at the least, and downright stupid at the worst.
It’s trivial to prove that, if that were true, then no exchanges would ever take place, and we’d indeed have a “Mathematically Perfected Economy”. Zero. Animal existence. Which is what socialists really want.
I love it when people can discuss ideas without resorting to name calling…
Nonsense. I am a human who desires a good bargain. I like it when things go on sale. I want something worth more to me than what I am exchanging. Luckily for me, others’ values are different than mine. That’s how I can buy a sandwich at the deli for a few dollars. I value the sandwich more than the dollars. The deli owner values the dollars more than the sandwich. Hence, we both come out ahead, in our own estimations. It’s not an equal trade; I am happier with the sandwhich than I was with the money.
Haha, that guy is a tool. If he really wants empirical proof, maybe he should pick up Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.” Or if he just wants common sense, maybe he should learn what a supply and demand curve is.
Exchanges to be mutually beneficial are not equal. I value what I am receiving more than what I am losing. The other part feels the same. Otherwise there is no reason to conduct the exchange.
Usury if agreed to by the lender and debtor IS NOT COERSIVE as the lender and debtor AGREED TO IT, otherwise there would be no agreement.
The entrepeneur has to make economic calculations about the future. The entrepeneur values the future return on their enterprise over the cost of using property (money) from somebody else.
I do not know why my logic is stupid? It only seems rational that entrepeneurs value future returns over usury fees. Otherwise the entrepeneur would be limited in the available money (capital) to what they have previously earned.