To: Ilaine who wrote (86 ) 3/28/2001 12:57:17 AM From: JF Quinnelly Respond to of 443 Well, I think you are mistaken. It's not just Austrians who use that definition of inflation and deflation. Simple price rises aren't "inflation", and you can hear as much from Greenspan and most other economists. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and creates widespread, generalized increases of all prices. If the gross domestic output of goods and services is constant, you get an inflation only by increasing the supply of money. I suppose you could also get an inflation if you reduced the supply of all goods and services in the economy at the same time while keeping the money supply constant, but that would require The Black Plague, or a series of Egyptian plagues perhaps. In the 30's, when 30% of the nation's banks went under in 3 years, you had a massive deflation, even while the supply of goods and services plummeted (which would have been inflationary!).but in the case of manufactured goods, energy costs are passed on to the extent they can be. This is irrelevant. Of course the costs are passed on (when they can be), that's why higher energy costs act like a tax on consumers and reduce the capacity of the public to spend. They spend more money on energy and have less to spend on everything else. But lowered buying power ("lower demand") means companies won't have the pricing power to pass on costs because their customers don't have the extra money to pay the costs. Either the companies eat the higher costs or they sell fewer goods. Energy costs are the most pervasive price inputs in the economy, since they are systemwide. Higher energy prices will be deflationary if the central bank keeps the money supply constant. They will be inflationary if the central bank tries to mask them with easy money-- but the inflation will be caused by the increased money supply, not the rise in energy prices.