The Conservative Case for QE2, Or, Why I Still Will Not Be an Austrian.

Hi Filc, maybe I can help sort things out.

I think an important distinction should be made between money per se and loanable funds. Also keep in mind that, where dramatic deflation has occurred in history, it has typically been credit deflation which followed periods of credit inflation.

I don’t see how any misrepresentation is being done if not all of the money supply is being spent and/or invested. Hopefully that makes sense – let me know if I need to clarify.

As I tried to explain to Kaz in another thread, the effects are not equal in magnitude yet opposite in direction. In the former scenario, the economy (i.e. the structure of production) will not grow as much as maybe it could have otherwise, given people’s time preferences. In the latter, however, the economy tries to “over-grow” and ultimately goes through a correction, whereby much of the growth is revealed to have been wasted time and effort. So it seems to me that, while centralized credit deflation is hardly a good thing, centralized credit inflation is much worse.

Regardless, I think all of us are opposed to centralized control of money and credit. :slight_smile:

Why the rudeness? Did I offend you somehow? That was not my intention at all.

With that said, I think you’re abandoning intellectual honesty with this statement. Apparently you’re not interested in convincing me of the correctness of your viewpoint. I don’t see how that’s the same as saying I’m “entitled to an education”. Although I can’t make you change your mind here, this does diminish your credibility in my eyes. Sorry.

I think it’s also very important to show what response has apparently instigated these series of personal attacks.

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/the-conservative-case-for-qe2-or-why-i-still-will-not-be-an-austrian/17125/96

Correct.

Correct.

I believe my points are being over-examined. I was simply making a point to Smiling Dave, alone, that there is alot more to the problem then just “inflation”, period.

The discussion has never been about what is worse.

Yes, this is why I get frustrated at DD5 when I catch him desperately looking for an argument where one doesn’t exist.

Many of us would actually be in agreement, but it’s the opportunities in misunderstandings which grant certain individuals excuses to go nuts. The ole bait n switch. I’m not referring to you ofc.

I’m sorry if I’ve overstepped any bounds.

Agreed. Communication is the key, as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t see any misunderstandings here, but what I do see is people refusing to engage their own arguments when challenged on paraxelogical grounds. Now, it is in their (or your) perfect right to do so or to disagree, but it is quite shameful to resort to personal attacks.

Edit: Instead of addressing perfectly valid questions and perhaps clarifying your position, you’ve decided to evade them (your right to do so) and resort to personal attacks. It doesn’t look good for you. It just looks like you’re being evasive and afraid to reavaluate the validity of your premises and reasoning.

There’s no need to apologize.

Ok so here is a great of example of you just mouthing off without having a clue as to what your arguing against. Your chasing down boogymen, trying your best to find flaws in my wording, when in reality you likely agree with my premise. In the process you are basically being patronizing, finding it more important to critique my representation of the material, rather then the material itself.

So please indulge me, what part of my points below are counter-praxeological?

Point A.

Changes in the ratio of goods and services to money which represents that supply of goods and services, must necessarily cause adjustments in monetary calculation.

Point B.

That the changes in point A occur non-uniformly and un-evenly and at different times and intervals.

Point C.

That the problem is not just that prices will rise in the long run, which, as Esuric points out, is only problematic with long-term interest rates. But that the un-even distribution of new money or credit is one of the first keynotes to understanding business cycle theory. It explains why inflation benefits some, while being a cost to others.

How are these points challenged by Praxeology, and if you agree to the points, why did you waste your time patronizing me in the first place?

sorry charlie, that paragraph isnt talking about your kind of demand for money. increases in population are not your kind of increase in dmeand for money, nor are any of the other reasons he lists on page 300-1.

BTW found a book by Mises called Money and Inflation. So I am putting this on hold till I see it

So you don’t come off as being evasive again, why don’t you address the specific questions here (specifically the first two comments):

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/the-conservative-case-for-qe2-or-why-i-still-will-not-be-an-austrian/17125/96

Perhaps your position simply needs to be clarified and nothing more. I have interpreted them in the context of your somewhat defense of Esuric’s position. I’m not arguing semantics. I never do.

When somebody says that uneven changes in market data is ‘problematic’ or occurring “too quickly”, or whatever, then it is not a waste of time to point out that such assertions are not compatible with praxeology.

Because your constructing an argument from nothing. I don’t need to address your questions, as they have nothing to do with the 3 points I posted above. Your desperately trying to find something to argue about, this is who you are. I could just as equally as call you evasive for ignoring them.

Lets make one thing straight here. Your not arguing against my premise, but of a perhaps poorly worded explanation of it. That in and of itself is not wrong, what bothers me is that I think you knew what my premise was, and agreed to it, prior to nit-picking. As such your just trying to find a reason to argue.

Now as for your comments addressed to me. Your first statement is entirely incoherent. The second statement about “too quickly” I can see your issue here, but this nitpicking misses the objections my 3 positions above raised. Your not actually addressing my core objections, just a specific wording of it.

Furthermore if it were true that un-even changes in the market did not cause issues in the capital structure amongst certain cases then there would not be a business cycle theory in the first place. I’d like you to explain the ABCT where un-even changes in the market did not exist. IE, taking the monetarist homogenous capital pool position.

So you see, in certain cases this keynote of ABCT is problematic. Specifically when the case is the printing of new money, and the ratio to goods and services to money is changed to such a degree that the historical data that is used to create money-prices is now in-adequate, and making safe economic calculations are impossible moving forward.

The reason why you set me off is because it’s apparent that your

A) Patronizing

B) Nit picking for no reason

Though since I have known you on these forums, I come to expect this behavior from you.

By the way, Filc, do you agree with my distinction between money per se and loanable funds?

Does one buy a loaf of bread where the other does not?

That wasn’t the distinction I was making. By “money per se”, I meant the entire money supply, including loanable funds. I don’t think the latter includes the money that people save outside of banks (e.g. under mattresses).

A few quotes from our man Mises; all the bold font is his words, my bolding.

Dig yourself a hole, those who disagreed with me. You will need it to hide in.

When the gov-
ernment prints a piece of paper, it doesn’t cost more to print “100” than
it does to print “10” or “1” on this same piece of paper. And the market
situation, the situation for all human exchanges, the whole economic sys-
tem is undermined, destroyed, by the governments when they consider it
advisable to increase the quantity of money by increasing the quantity of
government money.

In fact, all of Chapter Four, on the gold standard, breathes not a word of the mysteries of the trade cycle, but hammers home again and again that the sheer act of money printing destrys an economy. Go, my children, and read to your satisfaction. “Money and Inflation”, that’s the book.

Oh, here’s another:

The main thing with regard to money is the question, how to restrict, how
not to increase, its quantity.

See that, guys? Inflation and deflation are not equal boogey men. Inflation= bad. Deflation= not a problem.

Another priceless one:

Now there is a doctrine that says there is not enough gold. The rea-
son why these critics of gold are against the gold standard is due to their
belief that the quantity of moneymust be increased. Now the quantity of
money adjusts itself necessarily through prices to the demands of thepub-
lic. Yet, there are authors, professors, textbookwriters, who tell us there is
not enough money…

And he goes on to dismiss them as nutjobs.

Gem the next:

The problem is not to increase the quantity of money.The problem is
to increase the quantity of those things which can be bought with money.
And if you are increasing the quantity of money, and you are not increas-
ing the quantity of things which can be bought withmoney, you are only
increasing the prices which are paid for them. And in time, if the in-
crease in money continues, the whole system becomes a system without
any meaning and really without any possible method of dealing with it.

Tell me how that means rising prices is benign.

For those who like cute anecdotes:

In the years after the First World War, American economists frequently
visited Vienna and I had the pleasure of talking with them, and explaining
inflation and conditions as they prevailed at that time in Austria and in
other European countries. And, as you know, when people are talking
about economic problems, they are talking and talking until finally it is
late in the evening, very late in the evening. And so it was. Then I told
them, “I will now give you an explanation as to why conditions in the
country are not so satisfactory. I will takeyou for a little walk to the center
of the city, past a definite building.”This was at 11 o’clock or midnight.
And we went. It was very quiet. But then they heard a noise, the sound
of the printing machines that were printing banknotes day and night for
the government. The result in Vienna was very modest you know; the
American dollar which had been five Austrian crowns became 14,000 or
17,000 Austrian crowns. The inflation was bad, you are right. But this
was a very modest inflation; the achievement of inflation in Germany was
much greater you know. It took billions of marks to make one
U.S. dollar. You consider this a joke, but it was a tragedy of course. For
the people whose property it destroyed, it was a catastrophe.

Want more about how “benign” inflation is?

Inflation today is probably the most important phenomenon in polit-
ical life and political conditions. Fortunately there is still in this country,
and I hope it will succeed one day, a very reasonable opposition against
inflationary measures. But for many governments it is simply a question
of being in a situation of needing more money and they think it is per-
fectly reasonable to increase the quantity of money. If we want to have a
system of money that works and operates, one must not increase the quan-
tity of money without realizing at every step that one is approaching a very
dangerous point, the point at which the whole thing breaks down.

More:

Where does inflation start?
It starts as soon as you increase the quantity of money. And where does
the danger point begin?That is another problem.The question cannot be
answered precisely. People must realize that you cannot give a statesman
advice: “This is the point up to which you may go and beyond this point
you may not go” Life is not as simple as that. But what we have to realize, what we have to

know when we are dealing with
money and monetary problems, is always the same. We have to realize that
the increase in the quantity of money, the increase of those things which
have the power to be used for monetary purposes, must be restricted at
every point.

Got that, Mr Inflation is Benign?

OK enough is enough. I won’t do your research for you. But know this, our man Mises constantly hammers home that PRICE INFLATION, not the trade cycle, is the biggest problem on Earth. He repeats this over and over and over, so that even the meanest intelligence can get it. This may be very useful to some here with exaggerated ideas of their intellectual capacity, or who think Mises didn’t “pay attention” to price inflation.

OK, the hard core nutjobs here won’t be moved, Their silly minds are frozen into zombie states, unable to learn. But those who really want to know something, those who are curious, spend the half hour or so needed to read this 95 page book. Learn something.

Your just doing what I commented about above. You just searched Human Action for “Inflation”. Then posted what fit your argument, highlighting the comments which best agree with your opinion.

Meanwhile nothing of what I have said(And I doubt much of if any of what Esuric has said) is disagreeable with the quotes you’ve provided.

Furthermore, why not reason together rather than constant appeals to authority. Pitting one quote out of context against another, Making Mises appear to be bi-polar! lulz…

Sorry Autolykos I don’t know if I follow.

Esuric, please let your superior understanding of the topic stand on its own merit. Language like this is unnecessary, distracting, and contrary to the forum’s rules.

More from our man Mises:

But
one should not exaggerate the difference in the effects brought about by
the greater inflations as against the smaller inflations. The effects of the
“smaller inflations” are also bad.

And here he is, that naughty scamp Mises, saying what I did almost word for word. The very phrase that got Esuric into a lather when I said it. That when money supply is increased, prices go up. And here it is in bold:

The important point to remember regarding
inflation is that, while the money in circulation is increased, other things
remain unchanged. This inflation is very cheap, you know; it is a very
cheap procedure. What happens then? Prices go up. The government, of
course, wants a way out, a solution, so it is apt to try price-fixing. The
government fails to recognize the fact that if the public really obeys its
price-fixing orders, sellers will sell their entire supply of commodities to
regular customers at the former or fixed prices with the result that those
into whose pockets the additional money goes will find nothing to buy.

Give him the beat down Esuric, how dare he say that?

Oh, look at this. A whole chapter, 13, devoted to Esuric’s thesis. The title?

Many Economics Professors Believe the Quantity of
Money Should be Increased

Spoiler alert: Mises disagrees. And he lets loose with this one:

From the point of view of most people, of the masses, an
increase in the money supply is bad.

In HA he went a step further and called it evil.

BTW, half the book is gone and not a single word about the trade cycle.