[GJM] Another Response on Inflation Controls.

[robert searle]

--- Zack Johnson <zackjohnson at louisiana.usa.com>
wrote:

>  "Moreover, try, and understand that excess money
> creation does not lead to uncontrolled inflation in
> TFE. Most of it would, and cannot be spent because
> the relevant resources would not be there, and is
> hence, simply saved...."
> -------------------------------------------------


  Assuming your figures are correct about government
spending it would not lead to serious inflation
because of the comprehensive electronic super-flexible
price controls. If certain parts, or the whole of the 
economy start to have sharp prices temporary
subsidies, or some form of inflation taxation would be
brought into play. This would slow down the prices
below the Price Ceilings of each registered product,
and service.

It does not matter how much the bank accounts become.
If the resources are not there money cannot be spent.
Thus, the account holder has a problem.Ofcourse, if
the super-flexible controls did not exist the economy
would be flooded, and collapse with hyperinflation,
and rapid devaluation of currency as was the case of
Weimar Republic. 

Yes, charities in full, or in part could receive new
non-repayable money transmitted to them. Why not... If
inflation levels can be directly controlled
electronically? How can that be nonsense?? But the
real reason why you say this is because your mind
CANNOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF IT EVEN THOUGH IT
IS SO SIMPLE. It flies in the face of orthodoxy, and
the way you presently understand economics.

Anyway, recipients of grants (ie new unearned
non-repayable money) from the government would not be
prohibited from using them. Plans would exist to
ensure that the resources would also exist either now,
or in  the future so that money can be spent. To what
extent, it can, or "cannot" later on circulate as
earned money in the general economy itself is another
matter. 

I hope I am not confounding you too much  but you are
up against a new paradigm whether you like it, or
not...though ofcourse you will think otherwise. At
least, you do not seem to be parroting the same old
stuff which makes a refreshing difference.

Robert Searle.







> 
> Okay.  In the parameters I suggested, where half of
> all spending is government spending, and the ratio
> of account balances to the volume of transactions is
> one to four, if the government stops taxing but
> continues to spend at the same rate as before, the
> money supply is going to double every six months. 
> These are not hypothetical numbers but closely
> approximate the actual numbers in Western
> industrialized economies.  And you compound this
> nonsense by saying that charities will no longer
> need contributions but will get free money to spend
> also.





 Yes, indeed, and of course, prices will rise because
> the "relevant resources would not be there."  But
> now you say the money the government spends
> can't be spent by its recipients, therefore prices
> would not rise.  That would have to be through
> some kind of control, would it not?
> 
> Please explain why even a single supplier of goods
> and services to government would accept money
> from the government that he is prohibited from
> spending.  You are defining money that is
> absolutely worthless.
> 
> As I said before, a screw appears to be missing from
> the part of your brain that is supposed to think
> logically.
> 
> Zack
> 
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "robert searle"
>   To: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
>   Subject: Re: [GJM] Another Response on Inflation
> Controls.
>   Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:18:59 +0000 (GMT)
> 
> 
>   Dear Mr Johnson,
> 
>   I do not understand why you want to post
>   here if you find TFE "rediculous" . I am glad at
> least
>   that you seem to like Binary Economics, or BE, and
> it
>   is not contrary to my project. It forms a part of
> it
>   but cannot solve the whole global justice issue.
>   Moreover, BE would take a great many decades to
>   achieve, but if nothing radical is done in the
>   meantine in the financial field we could all be
>   heading towards disaster on a catastrophic scale.
> 
>   Incidently, I have never been barred so far on any
>   lists you will be suprised to know except for one,
> or
>   two....Furthermore, I have contributed to this
>   Discussion Group on subjects other than TFE, and I
> do
>   not think you can stop being biased about
> something
>   that attracts you most. Quite often Rodney
> Shakespeare
>   has written on BE here which after all is only
>   natural. I do not have a problem with that, and
>   neither should anyone else onsite.
> 
>   Unfortunately though you are showing yourself up
> yet
>   again because you are coming up with the same old
>   criticisms that belong to "old paradigm"
> economics. I
>   do not see why I have to continually repeat myself
> on
>   TFE especially to someone who clearly does not
> really
>   understand this evolving subject, and has his, or
> her
>   mind trapped in old thinking, and old ways of
> doing.
> 
> 
>   R.Searle.
> 
> 
>   PS. You seem to forget, or do not understand that
> the
>   electronic controls in TFE are super-flexible this
>   means that THEY CAN BE ADAPTED TO THE SUPPLY, AND
>   DEMAND OF PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES WITHOUT
> ARTIFICIAL
>   SHORTAGES WITHIN A VERY GENEROUS PRICE RANGE.
>   Admitedly, a Price Ceiling exists but it can be
>   raised, or lowered at the press of a button.
> Indeed,
>   any loss of profits (earned money ofcourse) could
> in
>   certain cases be compensated by an instant
>   transmission of new non-repayable money from the
> bank.
> 
>   Incidently, in TFE we not discussing Venezuela, or
>   indeed, China and their attempted clumsy price
>   controls.Their understanding, and approach is
> still
>   backward, and inadequate.
> 
>   Inflation controls in TFE are really direct
> electronic
>   strategies in containing inflation directly. They
> deal
>   with pricing, and money which at the end of the
> day is
>   electronic information which can be controlled in
> the
>   interests of the economy at any point in time, and
>   space.
> 
>   Moreover, try, and understand that excess money
>   creation does not lead to uncontrolled inflation
> in
>   TFE. Most of it would, and cannot be spent because
> the
>   relevant resources would not be there, and is
> hence,
>   simply saved....So, this endless repeated chatter
>   about government spending is unimportant in the
> light
>   of this simple explanation....though I doubt
> whether
>   you would understand it in a thousand
> years.........
> 
> 
>   RS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   --- Zack Johnson
>   wrote:
> 
>   > Robert, what is "simplistic" is your presumption
>   > that government spending, which in Western
>   > democracies comprises roughly half of all
> spending,
>   > would not be inflationary if government
> continues
>   > to spend but stops collecting taxes. Here you
> admit
>   > that it would be inflationary in the absence of
>   > "effective controls." The point is that with
>   > government spending being half of all spending,
>   > and the totality of transactions being roughly
> four
>   > times the quantity of money, this would result
> in
>   > the
>   > quantity of money doubling every six months--the
>   > very definition of hyperinflation. In such a
>   > situation
>   > it is impossible to control inflation without
>   > directly
>   > attacking its cause, that is, by stopping the
>   > spending
>   > or beginning to tax enough to cover the
> spending. You can indeed
>   > impose controls to keep prices
>   > down, but that puts monkey wrenches into the
>   > works of the economy, because no one can be
>   > forced to sell what he produces below his costs
> of
>   > production. So that stops the delivery of goods
> and
>   > services to the point of retail, exactly what
> has
>   > happened in Venezuela, which hasn't stopped
>   > taxing--it's just that they are printing and
>   > spending
>   > too much money not covered by taxes in that
>   > unfortunate country in attempting to purchase
>   > support for their "Bolivarian Revolution." And
> they
>   > have imposed controls. So now there are
> shortages
>   > of everything except oil in that oil rich
> country. And you take
>   > Venezuela's incompetent policy to its
>   > theoretical extreme by proposing to stop all
>   > taxation. One wonders if it is possible to
> replace
> 
=== message truncated ===




      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Inbox. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html