Can government print more money without causing inflation?

Since corporations own the govt. we see that there is a cycle of money flowing from corporations to the govt. and from the govt. to the corporations. Inflation is adjusted to allow more money to flow in the cycle from citizens that need two people to make a home by both working a job...What a scam.

 

I agree, but the conflict you reference is much more than simply a dispute over wages, whereas right wingers are content to single-out wage increases as being responsible for inflation in many cases.

 

Even then they're rehashing Keynesian comment. The monetarists were at least 'pure' in their right wing grunt. Mad as a March hare mind you.

 

And of course, idiotic to the core.

 

When the prices of the rich's rent collection privileges increase, that's "a booming market." But when the prices of working people's contributions to production increase, that's "cost-push inflation."

 

What's your understanding of inflation? Please provide a counter explanation

 

It's an increase in the general level of money prices.

It's caused by the money supply growing relative to the supply of what people buy. Complicating factors include the largely separate markets for products and assets as described in my other message, and the fact that inflation can increase velocity and deflation reduce it.

 

Hahahaha you can't help but confirm your orthodoxy. The idea that we can understand inflation purely through the money supply is Monetarism 101. And you forgot to critique Marxist conflict theory. Please take into account the similarities with the post-Keynesian perspective.

 

<yawn> "Orthodox" doesn't mean, "wrong about everything." Clear?

Which is why I just stated explicitly that we can't.

I didn't "forget." It's merely too unworthy an opponent to bother with, like astrology, homeopathy, or Mormonism.

Please understand that I am not going to be wasting any of my time doing your puerile homework assignments.

 

Everything you say, other than the Georgism script, is Orthodox 101. That you would support monetarism, despite it being an epic failure, just shows how right wing you really are. No wonder you're prepared to ignore discrimination! No wonder you flamebait to ignore responding to economics!

 

You are the one who incontinently ejaculates "Georgism" in random contexts.

False. As usual.

As you know, I did not and do not support monetarism. You just can find a willingness to understand that like "orthodox," "monetarism" does not mean, "wrong about everything."

Right: in most advanced democracies, it is a microscopically minor issue.

You are the very last person on earth who can accuse anyone else of flamebaiting.

 

Hahahaha look at the flamebaiter scramble! Your comment, "it's caused by the money supply growing relative to the supply of what people buy. Complicating factors include the largely separate markets for products and assets as described in my other message, and the fact that inflation can increase velocity and deflation reduce it" is Monetarism 101. Its a poorly written reference to MV=PT

 

Yes, you are making quite a spectacle of yourself.

Oh, really? Where does monetarism analyze the decoupling of goods and services prices from asset prices?

MV=PT is a tautology, so while not very interesting, it at least has the virtue of being true.

 

It is an identity. To use it to ignore the causes of inflation, however, is ignorant. You were asked to refer to the causes of inflation. You went with a monetarist response. You did that either because you're a right winger or you're ignorant of the inflationary theories. Personally I think the two are typically the same thing, but I'm being generous and pretending otherwise

 

You could look up "tautology" if you were interested in learning something.
.
.
.
Naaaaaaahhhhh...

Oh, so that's why you invoked it.

No, that's just another fabrication on your part, which is why you can't point to a monetarist analysis of the disconnection between asset prices and product prices. The causes of inflation vary according to the monetary system and economic conditions. In advanced capitalist economies, it is typically the result of private commercial banks creating too much debt money in order to charge interest on it.

More pure ad hominem flamebait from you.

Yes, you do a lot of pretending, though one struggles to discern anything resembling generosity in it. You do seem to be very practiced at it.

 

Just inane bluster! That's probably a good idea as you've already revealed your right wing 'credentials'.

Tell me, via Wikipedia if you must, why we can't apply post-Keynesian inflation analysis? Don't dodge now.

 

Again, thanks for the warning about the content of your post.

Yeah, I know: by not supporting protection of property rights.

Do you really think readers are unable to see through your slimy, two-faced filth, or that they are not repelled and nauseated by it?

We can apply it if we want, but it won't give accurate answers because it ignores how almost all money is created through private commercial bank lending.

 

Zero content again! Perhaps you're miffed that it leads to a focus on market power and more realistic understanding of pricing?

 

False claim again!

Wrong again!

 

Still no content. How are you going to dismiss post-Keynesianism when it constructs an understanding of inflation alien to your orthodoxy?

 

Why always make $#!+ up? Orthodoxy holds that money, banking and debt are irrelevant to the "real" economy. That's pretty alien to my view, as you know.

 

Even in your Econ 101 you struggle. Only the New Classicals assume irrelevance, as they use rational expectations to make ridiculously simplistic (and ideological driven) conclusion.

The Post Keynesians are interesting here for their focus on market power. Thus, market power isn't just a source of rent. It is also a source of crisis such as stagflation. By not knowing any of this you only inform me that you really have a rather stunted view of rent. Hey ho!

 

It's a shame you cannot post without resorting to such false and gratuitous ad hominem filth.

In your ignorance of economics, you seem to have missed the fact that economic orthodoxy IS neoclassical.

The post Keynesians are wrong about both stagflation and crisis because they don't understand modern debt money systems. At least the MMT faction of post Keynesians got that much right.

 

You're still sub-Econ101. Orthodoxy isn't neoclassical. It includes, for example, neo-Keynesianism (and the various macro guff that spawned).

You provide no valid economic critique, just repetition of your monetarist inspired bobbins (itself just a spawn of neo-Keynesianism). Where are the post-Keynesians wrong? You would have to reject cost-plus pricing. Good luck

 

Reiver, do you care to talk in terminology everyday people on this forum not familiar with all these obscure economic terms can understand?