[GJM] Another Response on Inflation Controls.........!!!!!!!!!!
robert searle
dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk
Sat Mar 1 04:39:49 MST 2008
--- Zack Johnson <zackjohnson at louisiana.usa.com>
wrote:
> "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."
>
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> Of course it can indeed be spent, which is what
> drives up prices if government is spending
> significant amounts of money into circulation not
> covered by taxes.
RS replies; Yes, it CAN be spent to a certain extent
but this depends on the account holder.
> -
>
> "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."
>
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> Here you admit that there would be hyperinflation if
> it were not for controls.
RS replies. Yes, this could be possible. The
question lies with HOW LONG IT WOULD HAPPEN AFTER A
TAX, AND INTEREST FREE ECONOMY WERE INTRODUCED. Many
economists would probably agree on this point.
Calling them "super-
> flexible" does not change that reality. This is
> what
> makes you a believer in magic. The problem that
> you ignore is that controls bring with them a host
> of
> problems. To the extent they are enforced, the
> economy shuts down. This has been the case with
> every attempt throughout recorded history to control
> inflation without going after the core problem, but
> rather than attacking the core problem, you want to
> exacerbate it by enshrining it into policy.
RS replies. The term Super-Flexible makes one hell
of a difference. They are
a) electronic just as money is, and hence, can control
its value, and interaction beneficially.
b) allow supply,and demand to occur within a flexible
price range long before any Price Ceiling is ever
reached.
c) can directly, and instantly control inflation
levels in super-flexible ways unimaginable in old
paradigm economics.
d) can allow for direct,and instant compliance over a
part, or the whole of the economy without some huge
bureaucracy.
e) can allow for business back-up in case of natural
shortages (as opposed to artificial shortages which
due to super-flexible pricing cannot occur) with the
aid of grants (made out of newly created non-repayable
money) interest free loans, plus skill/training
providers/consultants concerned with sustainable
alternatives for goods, and services within a high
growth capitalist system. A compensation system could
also be included.
f) can avoid currency devalution due to instant price
adjustment at the point of virtually every sales
transaction
et cetera, et cetera.....
In the light of the above it becomes obvious to anyone
that we are onto a winner. Ofcourse, there will always
be sceptics like yourself who have been "brainwashed"
by old paradigm economics....
> -
>
> "I hope I am not confounding you too much but you
> are up against a new paradigm whether you like it,
> or not..."
>
-----------------------------------------------------
>
RS replies. Yes, the BASIC idea of an interest, and
tax free economy is not new. We have been down this
road before. But it is a new paradigm in the WAY IT
COULD BE CREATED...Similiarly, Binary Economics is not
a new idea in essence but it is a new paradigm in the
sense that IT OFFERS A NEW WAY OF HOW TO ACHIEVE THE
CHANGE IT WANTS..........
At the present time it is ofcourse favoured over TFE
simply because it has greater credibility. The former
will achieve such a status over a period of time when
the research, and development of it has been fully
completed, and is ready to be taken seriously by those
who have power,and influence in the world.. This will
take several more years.
Moreover, it must be said that the money created for
governments would be probably undertaken by PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL COMPANIES, or special banks.A genuine state
bank is not absolutely necessary for this purpose.
I hope we can agree to disagree, and leave it that.
You have your opinions, and I have mine...I find your
comments dull, and repetative,and so does the rest of
the Discussion Group.So, please do not bore them
anymore...life is hard enough!!
Robert Searle.
> It is not a new paradigm, Robert; it's an idea
> that's
> been around for as long as governments have had
> sovereignty over money. It's just that you've
> carried
> it to its logical and most ridiculous extreme. In
> your naive ignorance, not being particularly well
> educated, you think you've invented something
> new.
>
> Zack
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "robert searle"
> To: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> Subject: Re: [GJM] Another Response on Inflation
> Controls.
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:18:55 +0000 (GMT)
>
>
>
> --- Zack Johnson
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
More information about the Discussion
mailing list