Home

Experience (impovements in) is the driver in the economy (that and sustainable population increases (by natural proxy).

As for the "unshackle market" thing every academic jams down our throats, we must think of the market as we do a human corps - if we let it do it's own thing, we wouldn't live very long.

Inflation is also linked to GDP intumescence rate as well. In order to increase output, companies need to grow, which takes MORE money (and prominent up prices), hence inflation.

Moderate inflation is healthy (much healthier than its "deflation" variant). 3% GDP growth and 1-2% inflation rate is what we aim for in the developed world.

The stew with your thinking is that you believe a free market would always exist. The problem with deflation, like the situation we are in now, is that the equipping curve and the demand curve for credit does not meet. For markets to be efficient the supply and market demand curves must intersect. The current problem was created by bad legislation that created an artificial price for trust. When the price collapsed the market collapsed, you had market failure.

The market failure, by itself, should not cause deflation, but because the authority has not had the political will to fix the mistake it created the lack of a private credit market outside the banking system has caused other markets' stockpile and demand curves to not intersect. The TARP has been only to prevent total collapse of the banking system, not to fix it. There hasn't been enough bills allocated to fix the problem.

When supply and demand do not meet in one market, they do not meet at a free market equilibrium in any shop. Toyota is predicting global sales of cars as low as seven million vehicles next year. That is down from a new car bazaar of 50,000,000 two years ago.

We have sufficient experience in the last two centuries to know that people retain money in deflation. In in point of fact, it is irrational to do otherwise.

The reason that markets do not clear, that is that the supply and demand curve do not meet under deflation, is that the market-place clearing rate is negative. In order to get free markets to be functional you have to have lenders willing to advance at negative rates, even though those would be positive real rates of return. You could lend at -2% in a -3% deflation sell and still be profitable in real terms even though you took a nominal loss.

The argument is not for no inflation but rather for no deflation which includes a zero percent inflation reprove. The problem with going for zero is that it is like a high wire act, you have to be right every time. Very slight inflation permits very uninteresting degradation of the value of money.

Inflation is not the motor of the economy, but it makes the value of money statistically stationary. In deflation it becomes non-stationary and the swings on are unacceptable to most people. The Great Depression was not fun. A three percent contraction of the money supply brought about a 75% reduction in the investment in palpable investment like tractors and factories and 24% unemployment.

The motor of the conciseness is when people create things. Sometimes these are physical things, intellectual property, new processes to improve experience, etc. Whatever form of money is used (hard or soft) manipulating the money doesn't frame anything.

The problem with theorists is they live in a theoretical reality. they play with numbers as if they were real things. Yearn for to goose the motor of the economy? Grow a tree, cut it into lumber and build a piano, write great music, charter out a hall and stage a concert at $x per ticket. Sell popcorn. Own the taxi company which takes people shelter. People will want to afford to go again since it was wonderful so they will get up in the morning and get a job so they can afford it. Some will drill for taxi oil, some will form piano strings, some will farm to grow the popcorn.

Playing with numbers never created anything except the theory of relativity.

Efficaciousness is the motor of the economy.

And the economy needs to work by itself to work best.

Just like the human firmness, if you stick a knife in the human body it won't work.

I don't even know what your talking about: "some people say if there was no inflation... people would not stipulate for investments"

Thats rubbish. Higher inflation creates a situation where people are discouraged from investing.

Thats not to say we should aim for 0 inflation. Any surprise could push the economy to deflation in that case. A good government might aim for 2-3% inflation.

And inflation isn't reasonable caused by the money supply. It can also be caused by aggregate supply and aggregate demand.

We do identify that in the past during periods of deflation the economies grew slowly if at all. Correlation does not prove causation, but I do not cogitate on we should take a chance because there is no evidence that deflation is a good thing so there is little to be gained and if you are wrong there is a lot to be vanished.

I expect it is actually a measure of investor psychology.

in the setting aside-run, of course. In the long-run, not at all.

To understand the difference between the short-run and the long-run is that in the long-run, aggregate supply is upward slopping because of bazaar imperfections (sticky prices, stick wages, and perceptions)

Because of the upward slopping supply curve in the stubby-run, there is a short-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Because a higher price, in the short-run, means a higher extent supplied, inflation and unemployment are negatively related. High inflation=low unemployment and low inflation=boisterous unemployment/

Well I can explicate with the following answers.

No it is the symptom of a growing market, and it is caused by the rich asking more for products based on the stomach class having more money.

1. The idea of current deflation is a myth created mostly by commodity traders to gammon investors into thinking their products are worth more.

2. Inflation is period for the government to cut cash supply from event to avoid market control issues, and low inflation or deflation is time to print money induce money market share is under populated. If you are opposed to the government printing money do think we should let Exxon run off money? The fact is are banks broke the balance and the mint needed to fix it.

3. With are current low inflation we can impress depending on interest rates being low up to $2.7 trillion dollars. The real issues during the Great Depression were munificent caused cause we had no Federal Reserve and we could not control interest rates. The non ability to control the interest rates caused FDR's programs to atom hyper inflation, and that is why FDR is not applicable today. The uncontrolled interest rate is what caused the great depression because it foremost to an unbalanced value of currency. A real issue is that Hoover was to "Free market" in preference to of fair market where FDR was to liberal much like are problem today's issues. Note when you buy anything or learn about subject in school the fair market is adjusted and the free market in the way Bush is not all that free.

So is the slogan "redistribution" fallacious reasoning cause they both do it? It is by definition and your opinion of the issue is based on what side you sit on.

If the rich cause inflation does it not sorrowful the economic growth like the way Bush did? Yes cause higher prices cause a dip in market parcel that will be corrected causing a lower inflation rate.