<LLCF:....I think I misspoke when I said 'inflation' with falling demand. I should have said: 'rising prices with falling demand'>
But if you read the whole stream of posts you'll see that what I meant was imports and that there could be problems in certain [very important] sectors and specifically excluded aggregate price levels:
siliconinvestor.com
<<Of course only import prices would rise, so maybe not prices in the aggregate... but some real spikes in some areas could certainly occur.>>
So while I'd like to just say... "Oh, I mispoke". It seems neither of us have a monopoly on taking things out of context.
<zonder:.."Rising prices" = Inflation>
Yes, the Austrian view differs from your's as I posted, I'm sorry if it was misleading to the extent of the difference. IMO if you read more about it, it won't appear that way at all:
<<"Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation' to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise.-Mises >>
Ineveitable is the operative word, and quite different from what you are saying as you can see.
Others can reasonably disagree with our assertion as well:
siliconinvestor.com
<preferably after a polite "Mea Culpa". >
Yes, my ego apologizes to the board for my inexcusable behaviour, it will not happen again.
<Thereafter, I will have no problem bringing this up pretty much everywhere I see you, which will be a small price to pay for the time you made me waste and the petty insults you threw my way. >
Yes, that's fine.
I think everyone who bothered has a flavour for the argument, I'll drop it now.
DAK |
