You have fallen for a textbook flaw in economic thinking. Inflation is actually the increase in the overall price of a basket of goods from one period of time to another. This is measured by an index, usually laspeyres or paasche index. The causation of the inflation may redistribute money but inflation itself does not, it is more of an outcome than a cause. This seems to the failing in your thinking throughout this thread, confusing the type or form that something falls into. For example the method or mechanism used to control inflation is something else too and although one method has certain side effects other methods do not. You seem to have put everything into the title of inflation or conssequence.
This is true people will generate their own understandings of things rather than being reliant on other people's opinions. Some times this is good but other times it creates a one sided agenda.
its pretty easy to put everything into a catagorie of " bad for the masses" when it comes to inflationary monetary policy... inflation can happen in a free market , say in the discovery of a large amount of Gold etc.. but you know well what i'm talking about , i'm talking about government intervention and its related consequences as it relates to inflation.. i'm not that well spoken but i think you understand though
This whole argument about inflation kind deters from the original topic about growth in a constrained economy and pay disputes. The comments you are all making indicates you don't seem to appreciate inflation is an outcome not a causation, which makes any debate completely pointless. You have lost on your lack of understanding of the exact meaning of what inflation is. You seem to think stimulation is inflation, it is not. If output increases at the same time as stimulation inflation will likely not occur. Increasing stimulation does not always lead to inflation and a decrease in output can lead to inflation. If output falls and demand stays the same you will get inflation due to the shortage of goods and services against the same money supply.
sure stimulation doesn't always lead to inflation... but when has hyper inflation happen when government stimulation wasn't involved.. I think you are missing the point.. Government intervention nets out negative to the economy.. your just trying to work your way around it so you can come up with your own nifty perscription for intervention
First of all there are many cases of hyperinflation without government intervention, unless you consider wars etc to be government intervention, even when it is another country attacking. Secondly the methods I have developed to control inflation have to be used anyway to cut the deficit, they have been used to stop the fall in output inflation which I described above. Perhaps see it another way, you are right, all of the methods governments/central banks currently use to control inflation have massive failings. The methods I use do not have, at least, as many. I worked around that to resolve what I describe in the article below, where if the interest rate was used instead of pension reform to control inflation the said would happen. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot....nary-trap-regressive.html?q=inflationary+trap
Some people would argue that the suggestions I put forward to hit economic growth targets, which may create inflation or even my efforts to control inflation actually stop government intervention. For example I recommended some early release of pension funds, it would stimulate the economy and stop the fall in output inflation (cost push inflation) I described above. Many people would see the government prohibiting pension investors from being able to access the funds they put aside as government intervention. By recommending it be taken away and pension release being expanded the interventionalist policy is reduced and the economy is stimulated, it may generate inflation as a consequence it may not, or it could be used to control inflation. The governments control over the peoples pension's is reduced. The process of becomming less government controlled and interventionalist is in itself an potential cause for inflation and economic outcomes. Even without trying to hit certain targets or certain outcomes those things will happen. If you want less governmental control of economic policy you would prefer my method as it works through consumer spending habits and free market saving mechanisms, tax is something I work around.
well... i guess you know me now... i am really pro free market I thought you might like the below Ludwig von Mises's 9 Best Tax Quotes 22 COMMENTS TAGS Taxes and SpendingAustrian Economics Overview 04/15/2016Tho Bishop In honor of tax day, a look at the best quotes from Ludwig von Mises on taxation: 1. "Some experts have declared that it is necessary to tax the people until it hurts. I disagree with these sadists." Source: Defense, Controls, and Inflation 2. "If the present tax rates had been in effect from the beginning of our century, many who are millionaires today would live under more modest circumstances. But all those new branches of industry which supply the masses with articles unheard of before would operate, if at all, on a much smaller scale, and their products would be beyond the reach of the common man." Source: Planning for Freedom 3. "Taxing profits is tantamount to taxing success. Source: Planning for Freedom 4. "Estate taxes of the height they have already attained for the upper brackets are no longer to be qualified as taxes. They are measures of expropriation." Source: Defense, Controls, and Inflation 5. "Progressive taxation of income and profits means that precisely those parts of the income which people would have saved and invested are taxed away." Source: Economic Policy 6. "The metamorphosis of taxes into weapons of destruction is the mark of present-day public finance." Source: Human Action 7. "Taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend." Source: Human Action 8. "[T]he system of discriminatory taxation universally accepted under the misleading name of progressive taxation of income and inheritance is not a mode of taxation. It is rather a mode of disguised expropriation of the successful capitalists and entrepreneurs." Source: Human Action 9. "Nothing is more calculated to make a demagogue popular than a constantly reiterated demand for heavy taxes on the rich. Capital levies and high income taxes on the larger incomes are extraordinarily popular with the masses, who do not have to pay them." Source: Human Action
Remember in the original article where the overall benefit of the taxation flip was the protection of the total portfolio investment of the wealthier person. The amount of overall taxation was the same it simply changed who paid it, are the people with lower incomes not being successful by generating their own income. So why do they have to pay such high taxes on a low income. If they get to keep more of the money they earn it means they will be less reliant on money they do not earn so there is a benefit there too, in that they receive more reward for more work. You might like the following articles in which there is less tax if you work more. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/more-work-more-reward-secondary.html http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/supplementary-income-co-operative.html Either way growth is required in a highly indebted nation to make sure people can repay what they owe. If they don't savings, investments, pension and captial investments will fail. This is not beneficial to the overall working of the economy. Economic growth must be maintained or you will increase the benefit/social security bill. There is a legal right to recieve certian benefits, if the economy enters downturn it will increase costs due to human rights to receive certain living standards. Unless these legal rights are taken away there is no choice but to try to maintain economic growth to avoid further costs in providing them. I believe in maintaining these basic benefits.
Reagan's tax cut ran up deficit. so did Bush's tax cut. There's no magic bullet, and Trump is no budget disciplinarian nor fiscally responsible. (Secret Service Protection for his entourage costs millions of dollars a day).