Fantastic commentary here... Can you show me some evidence that corroborates this view or is this just anecdotal? As to morals, when did I ever say anything about morals, work ethic or any other imponderables of that sort? I have no view on those things (not one I would want to discuss here, anyways). All I know are observable facts.
First of all, you clearly have a problem with logic. When did I ever say anything about you personally? I said that your reasoning in the posts you made was of poor quality. That has nothing to do with you as a person, unless you decide to get all defensive and take it personally, but that's your problem. Secondly, your line of reasoning is not based on facts, as I have demonstrated repeatedly, in a variety of ways. What it's based on is a well-known logical fallacy (called the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" or simply "post hoc" or the "false cause" fallacy). Thirdly, your theory is easily shown to be false, which is what I did. I went further and suggested that not only could I disprove your theory, but I could actually come up with a better one. That's a bonus, however, and would require a bit of work. I am not inclined to do it, as it would be pointless. Finally, it's obvious that creating more money doesn't necessarily lead to inflation. Counterexamples include US and Europe after the crisis, as well as Japan in the last couple of decades. All these are cases of furious money printing that has led to no inflation whatsoever.
Retail sales weak and of course consumers are saving. This is good, Americans need to spend less and save more. If 70% of our economy is consumer borrowing and spending. That will have to change. Retailers may need to step up discounting unless job growth picks up and rekindles consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy. Federal Reserve policy makers said this week that the recovery was likely to be âmore modestâ than earlier anticipated. Looks like deflation is not coming. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-u-s-climb-for-first-time-in-four-months.html
What do you mean "too short a base period" for Europe and US? When you made a claim that money printing implies inflation I don't recall you mentioning any lags or base periods. Would you care to refine your hypothesis then? What is the "base period" (or lag) parameter needed for observed reality to fit your theory? BoJ M1 increased 308.9% between the years 1993 and 2009. During the same period Japan consumer prices (Nationwide CPI) grew at an average rate of 0.05%.
" I said that your reasoning in the posts you made was of poor quality" who asked you. just point out the errors pt. by pt. if u have a point to make. ------------ you have not disproved my theory. if u can come up with a theory and wish to share do so. but what is the the pt. of saying I can but I won't? guess how that sounds? ---------------------- " Counterexamples include US and Europe after the crisis, as well as Japan in the last couple of decades. All these are cases of furious money printing that has led to no inflation " the US and Europe are proof of nothing. the time period is too short. as to Japan present proof that their money supply has expanded sharply and that it has been going on for decades. ------------------------------------------ also show the japanese has been hurt by deflation. the purpose of this thread is discuss the hypothesis that deflation hurts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt Japan public debt (2009) - 189.3% of GDP - 2nd highest in the entire world save for Zimbabwe.
Nobody asked me. I voiced an opinion, which is what you're doing. If you don't want to have this discussion, that's fine with me. You're right, in that I have no direct way to disprove your theory. However, "not demonstrably false" and "true" are two very different concepts. If you claim that your theory is correct just because I can't prove that it's wrong, that's yet another violation of one of the most basic rules of propositional logic. Furthermore, I have shown, a few times, that the reasoning behind your theory is fallacious. As to an alternative theory, I will certainly offer that later. See my previous post. That's using data available publicly from the BoJ (money) and the MIA&C Statistics Bureau (CPI). I never said anything about anyone "hurt" by deflation. I try not to argue about subjective and poorly defined issues. I don't know what "hurt" means. My argument with you is solely about facts, figures and your hypothesis that central banks are to blame for higher realized inflation (through creating excessive money supply).
once you say that your posts are of poor quality etc. you have personalized the situation. in your case. failure to show the errors is an egregious mistake on your part.
How does it personalize anything? I don't get that... Moreover, as I have said already, I have shown the error in your argument, a number of times and in a variety of ways. At any rate, this is getting pointless. If I have managed to offend you personally somehow, pls accept my apologies, as that was never intended. Let's leave it.