Can government print more money without causing inflation?

I disagree. Why would you think a little bit of deflation would be so bad?
Especially if everyone is expecting that moderate rate of deflation well ahead of time.

 

Anyway, I think everyone is ignoring the main point in the original post, and getting side-tracked with other debates.

 

No there isn't. There is one definition. There are a number of potential 'causes' of inflation. Crikey, you say the silliest of things.

 

No. That is false. Your claim is again just false. You need to find a willingness to understand that you are wrong. Obviously you are just objectively incorrect as a matter of indisputable fact. My dictionary lists two economic definitions, and others have also been used from time to time, and can be found on the Internet and in various print sources.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

There is one definition, but I'm prepared to be amused at your multiple pretense. Please provide the multiple definitions

 

The premise is, if deflation is expected, consumers won't consume, waiting longer for the price(s) to fall further.

The clamming up of spending sends prices plummeting.

 

<yawn> Why do you do this to yourself? You know I am only going to demolish and humiliate you again:

"inflation, n. 1. undue expansion or increase of the currency of a country, esp, by the issuing of paper money not redeemable in specie; 2. a substantial rise of prices caused by an undue expansion of paper money or bank credit;"
-- Webster's New Universal Unabridged

See? Two -- count 'em, two -- definitions.

Here are two more -- increased general price level, and specifically increased cost of living:
"Inflation is a situation of rising prices in the economy.
A more exact definition of inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level in an economy. Inflation means an increase in the cost of living as the price of goods and services rise."
https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/inflation/definition/

And again, either a basket of goods and services or the general level of prices:
"Inflation is a quantitative measure of the rate at which the average price level of a basket of selected goods and services in an economy increases over some period of time. It is the rise in the general level of prices where a unit of currency effectively buys less than it did in prior periods."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflation.asp

"Economics: a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money."
https://www.google.ca/search?ei=k9q...=inflation+definition&oq=inflation+definition

"economics: a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency (opposed to deflation)."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inflation?s=t

So there are actually three distinct definitions: excessive increase in money supply; general rise in prices (i.e., includes asset prices); and increase in prices of goods and services (i.e., not including asset prices).

I'm right, you're wrong.

 

Not just prices, but more importantly demand, which shrinks the economy, creating unemployment, etc.

 

Reiver, that simply is not true. Do you have a definition for inflation that doesn't involve a particular (and thus arbitrary) basket of goods?

Which prices should we look at, exactly? And exactly how much weight should be given to each item?

It's fool-hardy to believe you can come up with an objective definition that can actually be applied to real-life precise measurement.

 

Which is just ridiculous. There's a sort of self-balancing equilibrium. If no one is spending money now, prices will drop until people start buying.

The exact opposite is true with inflation. Inflation will cause current prices to rise. It's like an invisible tax.

But going back to deflation... For the same reason consumers may not want to spend money, businesses also want to get that money, so will be all too happy to lower their prices, precisely and exactly compensating for the reluctance of consumers to spend.
It all balances out.

I don't know where you people get these insane ideas from.
Maybe modern economic courses are grossly misteaching people things, or maybe it's teaching things from a biased school of thought.

 

Do yourself a favor and look up deflation and what happens in a deflationary period.

It will help you out.

 

Will you refuse to consider the argument and do your own critical thinking about this?

 

huh?

 

It feels like you're just doing an "appeal to experts" and don't have any argument to present.

 

We've had deflationary periods in history. It was not good.

But you just want to pull something from your backside? And feel that's an argument?

 

We also had stagflation (inflation) in the 70s. That was not good either.

It only seems inflation is good and deflation is bad, because inflation happens leading up to a bubble, whereas deflation happens after that bubble pops.

 

I think the last time actual deflation happened after a bubble was in the 1930s.

After that mess, the Fed Res has done as much as possible to alleviate falling into a deflationary period. By stimulating the economy during busts and keeping money flowing rather than contracting.

 

It's one thing if the Central Bank wants to alleviate excessive sudden unexpected deflation, and ease the country into it, keeping the rate low and gradual.
But it's a completely different thing if you're talking about trying to reduce any deflation whatsoever, and demand a constant inflation rate.

If they want to "stimulate" an economy, fine, that is one thing, but what does that really have to do with inflation?
I totally disagree with the premise that deflation will stop economic activity and inflation will stimulate economic activity.

 

There is only one economic definition. The only real debate is over the exact features of the basket of goods and services used in the measurement. If you're going to argue about that, mind you, you perhaps need to get out more. Overall, I love your faux arrogance. That you then think you're debating by using the dictionary and Wikipedia type non-sources is the icing on the cake

Those talking about asset price inflation are sphincter gazing. Those talking about cost plus pricing are just puffing out their chest and looking sub-Econ 101. That refers to very simplistic cause of inflation. Even then its low brow. The debate, as I've already mentioned, is how monetarism can be shown to be simple minded by referring to the importance of mark up pricing (which also of course demolishes the laws of supply and demand).

 

Hahaha, I've just typed about the mechanics of measuring inflation. Have a butchers! Naff all to do with what I said. The definition remains unchanged

Perhaps, given you didn't know that simple fact, your subsequent efforts must be taken to be terribly suspect?

 

No, I just proved you objectively wrong. Again.

Wrong. There is also the matter of whether such a basket is even the right measure.

I wasn't debating. I was proving your claim false.

That is a good example of your modus operandi: superciliously dismiss the actual issue, and pretend some minor side issue you happen to have read a paper about is the only thing worth talking about.

 

Here you go again ignoring the points made. You indeed used a dictionary and Wikipedia sources. You indeed merely confirmed that the definition of inflation is set in stone. We only have tiresome, and very marginal comment, over the basket of goods. That's a mechanical issue. We do have differences in the sources of inflation, but you again have gone for the most simplistic. I was a good egg to illustrate that. No need to thank me

 

I see it's impossible for us to stay on topic, again.

 

I see its impossible for you to accept the correction of your error.

That's the trouble with monetarism. It isn't based on anything but hotair and corruption of bastardised Keynesianism

 

Hotair? Your side has been the one unable to put up any argument.
I've delineated my argument very clearly, and have yet to see any honest attempt at rebuttal.

It really seems to me what you are saying is all PROJECTION based on your side's own faults. Your side is the one that has the bastardized version of Keynesian, and all the hotair seems to be coming from you.