0 sats \ 11 replies \ @didiplaywell 21 May \ on: It's worse than you think - Vox Popoli econ
Two questions:
- What do you imply exactly by "inflation is borrowing money"?
- What's the "public economy"?
One observation:
- No theory says that "inflation is printing money". No economist has ever said that! For instance, that's not what the monetarist theory says either. Monetarism clearly states that "inflation is caused when money is printed above the real rate of growth of the economy", which in practice is traduced in the state spending more money units than the units it receives through direct taxation.
The original meaning of “inflation” was money creation, so you are not correct about that.
The entire Austrian Economics tradition still uses the term in its original meaning.
reply
I didn't say that inflation isn't creating money, I said that the expression is incomplete!
I vow for the Austrian principles.
reply
Sorry, I misunderstood your point.
It would still be correct to say that printing money is inflation, but it's only one form of it.
reply
What you mean with "one form of it"?
reply
Money can be created either by directly printing it or through creation of new debt.
reply
It's quoted, I don't say it, the author of the blog post does. I think it's because he sees borrowing as the primary cause of the expansion of the money supply.
Public economy is a reference to the economic activities controlled by the public sector, i.e. the government.
Monetarism clearly states that "inflation is caused when money is printed above the real rate of growth of the economy", which in practice is traduced in the state spending more money units than the units it receives through direct taxation.
I think that is what the screenshot implies.
reply
Ok! If you didn't we can talk about it. The article is flawlessly wrong in its entirety. But, what calls your attention about his take?
reply
I know the author's very critical of the boomers, so he's for sure biased against them. But I'm interested to know why you think the article is wrong. I guess this issue could be settled by comparing the proportion of public and private economies? But is it even possible, considering how intermingled they both are?
reply
To start, I hate boomers too. They created the monster, fed him and allowed him to grow unrestrained, all along being prodigiously clueless about the implications.
There is no proportion of "public" economy, there is only private economy, and public spending. Whenever public spending exceeds what the private economy provides, it means it's getting money somewhere else: the printer. That's the only place where non taxed money can physically come from, as it does. As new money enters the economy through public spending, new consumers appear for a non existent production. Pressing demand for a limited offer pushes prices up, and the rest is history.
reply
Good point, thank you!
reply
My pleasure :)
reply