Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (2285)	6/10/2003 12:01:29 AM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4905

But Mises clearly states: "From this we an conclude that inflation is a general increase in the money supply." Von Mises was wrong since there have been extended periods of rising money supply without inflation. Also, there have been extended periods of declining money supply with definitive inflation. During the '70s the real money supply fell. So just when does Von Mises' concept come into play? Haphazardly? Besides, who says Von Mises has a corner on the market for economic knowledge? Further clarification: <<"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. Make a bad assumption, reach a bad conclusion. 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. > But it isn't an inevitable consequence. Just when does that consequence follow money growth? Just when does one throw in the towel on the presumed "inevitable consequence"? How long before Von Mises' theory can be considered to have failed?

To: LLCF who wrote (2285)	6/10/2003 8:10:48 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4905

No, remember, although I used a quote that was technically taken out of context, for which I think I apologized for, the point was actually correct No you did not apologize for it, and I showed in a later post (after having looked into the site itself rather than taken your word for what it said) that the sentence following the one you posted clarified their position - they never said "price increases are not inflation": --------------------------------------------------- Similarly, the essence of inflation is not a general rise in prices but an increase in the supply of money, which in turns sets in motion a general increase in the prices of goods and services mises.org ----------------------------------------------------- The first part, starting with "similarly..." is what you posted. What follows, in bold, is what you have missed. But Mises clearly states: "From this we an conclude that inflation is a general increase in the money supply." Oh for the love of heavens. Inflation is a rise in prices. That's how it's calculated. Get over it. After that, one may talk about whether or not increasing money supply TRIGGERS inflation...