Fair, although I fail to see how I intend to keep people ignorant. I am always willing to answer questions to the best of my ability, unlike yourself. At any rate, maybe you can help me with something I don't really understand? You clearly have a strong view on the subject, given how many of these YouTube videos you have provided. In light of this, I find it a little strange that you're unwilling and/or unable to speak with your own voice. Why is that?
This is not really correct. If the money supply were stable and there has been no preceding credit expansion, steady deflation should occur because of rising productivity. Obviously, nothing will be produced for long if it cannot be sold at a profit. Inflation is chosen for a number of reasons, mostly political and psychological rather than economic. Society craves the gambler's adrenaline and emotional rush of booms and crashes, credit-fueled speculation, and fabulous gains and losses, rather than the boring business of grinding out marginal productivity gains in a mature economy where the days of high single-digit or double-digit growth are behind us. Inflation allows people to rely on steady nominal increases in wages and asset prices, even if this erodes their standard of living in boil-the-frog fashion. Academic economists can't simply admit that most or all significant economic knowledge is already understood, they have to be constantly 'innovating', they need something to argue about, and there's a strong tendency to back inflationist, statist and interventionist policies and ideologies. There is some validity to backing an interventionist or inflationist policy after a massive bust has already occurred, to stretch out the pain and losses over time and buy time for economic restructuring without mass starvation in the streets, etc. - but 'massive busts' can only occur in the first place because of inflationary credit expansion and debt-driven speculative booms.
False! Worse, inflation can cause an implosion. Worse than worse: if one were to fight it too late, one could accelerate the implosion.
I assume when you attribute emotional qualities to "the government" as in "the government fears" or the "government has become more paranoid", you are referring to the collective response of plutocrats who exercise broad control over government policy and enforcement -- or at least attempt to exercise it. If that is your meaning, then I think I largely agree with you. I am sometime astounded by the number of ET posters exhibiting a paucity of logic and reason and a readiness to accept the imaginary as fact if it fits their ideology -- you, Martinghoul, Swan Noir, and a few others, being notable exceptions. This is, it seems, consistent with the anti-intellectual mood pervading ET Forums. I have mentioned a number of times that a very bright economist friend has often said that we have the answers to nearly all our problems of governing, but there are major hurdles standing in the way of implementing them. These hurdles are put up by a relative few with power and influence. They benefit from the status quo, or so they believe. If this is true, than the the trick to implementing rational change without upheaval will be to convince those few that their interests will be better served as well. It is rare that anyone will vote, or act, against what they perceive as their own interests, even in the face of obvious benefit to many.
Yes, I am referring to the bureaucrats that define and set policy as having emotional qualities. I do believe that groups have a kind of combined-personality with emotional traits at times. Thanks for your gracious comments.