The case against Dr. Paul

[volatile]

It does if the amount of new currency placed into the economy is not in relation to new wealth created.

That causes inflation, yes. But that's not the only, or even primary, cause. Inflation often occurs even without an increase in the supply of cash.

Thus "The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency" is manifestly false.

 

[dudalb]

I really wonder how old Jerome is. Arguing with him is really like arguing with a 12 year old with all his avoiding answering questions and constant subject shifting.

Let's remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[David Wong]

It was interesting to see Jerome go through the learning process there. He clearly didn't know before this discussion that there isn't nearly as much paper currency as there is money in circulation. So when someone informs him, he first laughs at them, then when he realizes it's true, desperately pretends that he knew it all along.

Whatever school teachers make in his country, it isn't enough. They have to put up with a lot.

 

[David Wong]

By the way, Dash seems to be implying that a world under a dominant China will be much wealthier and more free than the world under a dominant USA.

Does anyone disagree with this? That the majority of the world's oppressed and poor nations are that way only because the USA keeps them down? And that China can finally set them free?

 

[dudalb]

By the way, Dash seems to be implying that a world under a dominant China will be much wealthier and more free than the world under a dominant USA.

Does anyone disagree with this? That the majority of the world's oppressed and poor nations are that way only because the USA keeps them down? And that China can finally set them free?

Let's ask the Tibetans about that.

I already noted that for somebody who rants about individual liberty, dash seems to be very fond of Authoritarian governments like China.
dash's opinions on politics and economics are just as good as his opinions on physics..or is that vice versa?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It was interesting to see Jerome go through the learning process there. He clearly didn't know before this discussion that there isn't nearly as much paper currency as there is money in circulation. So when someone informs him, he first laughs at them, then when he realizes it's true, desperately pretends that he knew it all along.

Whatever school teachers make in his country, it isn't enough. They have to put up with a lot.

You have it backwards.



Please read the thread conversation before writing. It will allow you to avoid your obvious misunderstandings.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That causes inflation, yes. But that's not the only, or even primary, cause. Inflation often occurs even without an increase in the supply of cash.

Thus "The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency" is manifestly false.

You are contradicting yourself in your own post.

 

[volatile]

You are contradicting yourself in your own post.

No, I'm really not...

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That causes inflation, yes.

In reference to: "The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency"


And in the same post you wrote:

Thus "The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency" is manifestly false.

Contradiction extraordinaire.

 

[volatile]

In reference to: "The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency"


And in the same post you wrote:



Contradiction extraordinaire.

Errm. No.

The "That causes inflation, yes." was an acceptance that minting more money can cause inflation, which is why I posted the part of your posts I was responding to directly before it:

It does if the amount of new currency placed into the economy is not in relation to new wealth created.

That causes inflation, yes. But that's not the only, or even primary, cause. Inflation often occurs even without an increase in the supply of cash.

However (and this is an important "however", as it undermines your entire argument), the minting of currency is not the only thing that causes inflation, because a currency and its instruments are different things. Thus, the "value of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth" (ie the sumtotal of the physical instruments) does not"dictate the "value of a currency).

For the umpteenth time, a currency and its instruments ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Errm. No.

The " That causes inflation, yes." was an acceptance that minting more money can cause inflation.

However (and this is an important "however", as it undermines your entire argument) that is not the only thing that causes inflation, because a currency and its instruments are different things. Thus, the "value of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth" (ie the sumtotal of the physical instruments) does not"dictate the "value of a currency).

For the umpteenth time, a currency and its instruments ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.

Are you having a different conversation than I?


We are talking about the value of a currency in relation to the wealth of an economy.

What are you talking about?

 

[volatile]

:headdesk:

You said - "The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency."

You are wrong, because currency and its instruments are different things.

Keep up at the back.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

However (and this is an important "however", as it undermines your entire argument) that is not the only thing that causes inflation, because a currency and its instruments are different things. Thus, the "value of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth" (ie the sumtotal of the physical instruments) does not"dictate the "value of a currency).

Are you trying to restate my argument in a way that denies the money held in banks, investments, and such?

I am talking about the M-3 number.

If the M-3 number is; let us just say, 1 trillion dollars, and the central bank adds 1 trillion new dollars without the wealth within the economy growing what happens to the value of the dollar?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

:headdesk:

You said - "The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency."

You are wrong, because currency and its instruments are different things.

Keep up at the back.

You are playing semantics. I assumed we were past this game a couple a pages ago.

Please answer the question in my above post.

 

[volatile]

Are you trying to restate my argument in a way that denies the money held in banks, investments, and such?

Do you think we can't read the post on this thread where you said

What are dollars if they are not Fed notes?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Do you think we can't read the post on this thread where you said

You will need to be able to follow a conversation to use quotes in such a manner.

You are playing the archivist out of context semantics game.


I am here for thought. Good luck with your endeavour.

 

[volatile]

You are playing semantics. I assumed we were past this game a couple a pages ago.

Please a

Answer the question in my above post.

Your entire argument rests on your original claim that Fed Notes and Dollars were the same thing.

Remember, you said:

What are dollars if they are not Fed notes?

Who creates these dollars which are not Fed notes?

This is not semantics. There is a fundamental, important and material difference between a currency and its instruments, and this difference makes a mockery of your incredulity.

 

[volatile]

You're here for thought? Then try and get your head around the very simple concept that currency and its instruments are different things, and why that means, by definition, "The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency" is a nonsense statement.

Of course minted new cash causes inflation - I said as much up thread - but that is a very, very different thing to the liquidity of an economy "dictating" the value of its currency.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Oh my god. Seriously? Do we need to go that far back? I have only a cursory interest in economics and am terrible at maths, but even I can answer the question "What's wrong with deflation?"

To start with, rampant deflation discourages savings. If you hold onto your money whilst its dropping in value, you're screwed. Hardly a great economic strategy for long term prosperity now, is it?

Furthermore, with deflation, the harder someone works, the less their labour is worth. If you have a currency deflation every time productivity increases, you are disincentivising labour (and innovation)...

Sheesh. If you think about this for a microsecond, you'll realise how silly you sound.

Here is an in context quote without the use of semantics to make a point.

I will let your post stand for itself. You have zero understanding of the term deflation.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You're here for thought? Then try and get your head around the very simple concept that currency and its instruments are different things, and why that means, by definition, "The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency" is a nonsense statement.

Of course minted new cash causes inflation - I said as much up thread - but that is a very, very different thing to the liquidity of an economy "dictating" the value of its currency.

I am sorry but you are wrong. You do not even know what deflation is. How can you possibly understand inflation?


Try a couple of laughing dogs. If you put three or four in a post you might get me to forget that you have no understanding of what we are talking about.