[GJM] Another Response on Inflation Controls.

[Zack Johnson]

 "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...."
-------------------------------------------------

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
  > the screw that is missing from the part of your
  > brain
  > that is supposed to think logically.
  >
  > I again ask why this list's moderator doesn't bar
  > your junk postings? They have nothing to do with
  > and are quite contrary to the Binary Economics
  > favored by Rodney Shakespeare and the other
  > founders of this list. You've posted to hundreds of
  > lists over the Internet. Typically, after one or
  > two
  > posts, you're barred, because you're simply a Johnny
  > One Note.
  >
  > You're stuff is most certainly not the work of
  > genius, despite your pitiable hubris.
  >
  > Zack Johnson
  >
  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: "robert searle"
  > To: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
  > Subject: Re: [GJM] Another Response on Inflation
  > Controls.
  > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:46:57 +0000 (GMT)
  >
  >
  >
  > --- robert searle wrote:
  >
  > > Dear Mr Johnson,
  > >
  > > There are many unknowns in economics, and your
  > > simplistic comments about how everything would
  > > devolve
  > > into hyperinflation, and lead to total
  > devaluation
  > > is
  > > an example of this. Ofcourse, this would
  > probably
  > > happen if no effective controls existed...
  > >
  > > However, you are correct about price controls
  > having
  > > a
  > > poor record.........BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE
  > FULL
  > > WEIGHT OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY TO ENSURE THAT THAT
  > > PRICES
  > > COULD BE CONTROLLED DIRECTLY, AND
  > INSTANTANEOUSLY IN
  > > A COMPREHENSIVE SUPER FLEXIBLE MANNER. This
  > makes
  > > COMPLIANCE EASY. Got it? And please try, and
  > understand that MONEY
  > IS
  > > ELECTRONIC INFORMATION. As such it can be
  > directly
  > > controlled just as I can press a button on the
  > > computer, and delete your dull repetative posts
  > > INSTANTLY. If you do not like this Discussion
  > Group you are
  > > free
  > > to unsubscribe.....and I also see that you are
  > an
  > > accountant which probably explains
  > everything!!!! Robert Searle,.
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > --- Zack Johnson
  > > wrote:
  > >
  > > > In Western industrialized economies government
  > > > spending is essentially half of all spending.
  > What
  > > > is
  > > > counted as the money supply is the residuum of
  > the
  > > > spending by all sectors of the economy, and
  > its
  > > > reflux. The totality of transactions is a
  > > multiple
  > > > of
  > > > the quantity of money when counted this way.
  > Let's
  > > > say the multiple is four in an economy where
  > half
  > > > the spending is by government. That means
  > that,
  > > if
  > > > the government stops taxing but keeps
  > spending,
  > > the
  > > > quantity of money will double every six
  > months. It
  > > > is absolutely impossible for there not to be
  > > > hyperinflation in such a situation, despite
  > the
  > > > imposition of controls such as Mr. Searle
  > > proposes:-
  > > > > "With respect, I have tried to explain in
  > simple
  > > > English how an effective though admittedly
  > > > unpopular approach (rather like taxation)
  > would
  > > > probably be vital in the initial introduction
  > of a
  > > > tax,
  > > > and interest free economy. It would probably
  > > > involve the electronic lowering of the Price
  > > Ceiling
  > > > so that any rapid price rises would be capped
  > > > automatically. This process may be repeated
  > > several
  > > > times if necessary. Thus, in spite of any
  > > > inflationary pressures businesses would have
  > no
  > > > choice but to lower their prices to certain
  > levels
  > > > or
  > > > risk being fined out of existence in a very
  > short
  > > > period of time!! Yes, a 'draconian' measure if
  > you
  > > > will....like the non-payment of income
  > taxation,
  > > and
  > > > the possibility of the jailhouse!"
  > > > > There are literally hundreds of examples
  > > throughout
  > > > history where the authorities have tried to
  > impose
  > > > controls such as these, and every one of them
  > has
  > > > failed miserably--the most recent example
  > being
  > > > Venezuela, which has the highest rate of
  > inflation
  > > > in
  > > > the Western Hemisphere. Yes, if sufficient
  > > > penalties are imposed, businesses will lower
  > their
  > > > prices below their costs of production, but
  > they
  > > > also
  > > > stop supplying goods and services. So this
  > > > inherently rich oil-exporting country has
  > > shortages
  > > > of everything except oil.
  > > > > With all due respect, Mr. Searle does not
  > appear
  > > to
  > > > be very knowledgeable about how economies
  > work,
  > > > but rather appears to be an utter ignoramus.
  > > > > Why is his junk tolerated on this list?
  > > > > Zack Johnson
  > > > Certified Public Accountant
  > > > Monroe, Louisiana
  > > > > ----- Original Message -----
  > > > From: "robert searle"
  > > > To: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
  > > > Subject: [GJM] Another Response on Inflation
  >
  === message truncated ===

-- 
Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://globaljusticemovement.net/pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20080229/1b947f0b/attachment-0001.html