Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,567
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Does hyperinflation cause "printing money" - inflation
(and not the other way around)? "Chicken & Egg" -- which came first?
Hyperinflation causes more "printing of money"?
Would someone explain how this works, other than just declaring it as a new religious cult doctrine handed down FROM ON HIGH.
And this increase in currency everywhere, requiring consumers to run out quickly to buy stuff, with a wheelbarrow-full of large bills, does or does not contribute to the inflation and cause it to increase still higher?
Are you saying the prices would still increase just as much anyway? even if no new money was "printed"? or does all this new money created have a further inflationary effect, causing the inflation to become even worse?
I came across this item
It's clear that some crusaders want to debunk the notion that "more money being printed" is what causes inflation.
The argument seems to be based on empirical measurements of what happened when someone expanded money, like banks or the central bank "printing" new money and yet there was no inflation as a result, etc.
Or showing other causes of inflation happening even when there was reduction of the money supply, or reduced "printing" of money. Or also there could be increased money supply and yet reduced money "printing" and so on. Much semantics about how money supply is measured and what is money "creation" or "printing" etc. Also, in addition to the multiple causes phenomenon, there's also the matter of timing, or the chronology, such as how long it took for some new money issuing act to cause an effect somewhere.
Isn't there at least a consensus that vast money "printing" causes some inflation?
E.g., does anyone deny that if a nation doubles its money supply, by simply "printing" bills, it would cause all prices to rise?
There is still an admission that "too much" money being "printed" or "created" would likely cause inflation or higher prices. But still there is an insistence that there are many other causes of inflation, and these are more important.
The only argument that makes any sense is that an increase of "money" (like massive "printing" of bills) causes some inflation, but otherwise there are likely hundreds of causes, and these other causes might be much more significant if "printing" money is kept very low.
What does it mean to say the "hyperinflation" existed first and only then did the extra money "printed" cause some extra inflation? How do we know that the hyperinflation came before the money was printed?
According to
it's the opposite. In Germany in the 1920s the government "simply printed more money" and this led to hyperinflation. Not that the hyperinflation existed first and then led to the "printing" of money.
How do we know which came first?
The idea that the hyperinflation actually comes first, and ONLY AFTER that is there the money "printing" seems to be a new religious cult doctrine, which has not been proven, other than to use many empirical examples to show how there might be some other patterns of inflation caused in different ways, and that we need considerable inflation for some mystical or cosmic power it exerts on the economy, to give the economy a "shot in the arm" or a "stimulus" in order to cause "economic growth" and cause "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" etc.
Except for this, no one is giving any reason or evidence or theory explaining why we need a certain amount of INFLATION in order to have a healthy economy.
An ongoing deficit could be defended as serving some purpose, as long as it's kept below a certain level as a percent of the total economy. But no one ever gives a coherent argument why we need to have inflation. The Fed seems to have a doctrine that a 2% inflation rate is healthy as something regular to strive for. But it has never given a reason for this, other than the usual "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble nonsense.
Can someone explain why the economy needs a regular inflation rate above 0%? without the usual "economic stimulus" babble? Even the "economic growth" babble makes no sense, in that the only meaning of "economic growth" is more and more dollars spent (or more and more GDP), and by that logic, all we need in order to make the economy perform better is more and more bridges to nowhere. Because every dollar wasted on another unneeded program is another dollar of "economic growth" -- and isn't some of this "economic growth" actually more harm than good?
When we define "growth" as simply more spending, spending, spending (on anything no matter how wasteful), more "jobs! jobs! jobs!" and more waste and pork and corporate welfare, where is the evidence that we're better off from all this spending just for the sake of spending per se?
(and not the other way around)? "Chicken & Egg" -- which came first?
Hyperinflation causes more "printing of money"?
Would someone explain how this works, other than just declaring it as a new religious cult doctrine handed down FROM ON HIGH.
So in all cases of inflation (or hyperinflation), the real cause of it is something that happens BEFORE the "printing of money" (i.e., the inflation comes first -- and then only AFTER the prices have soared to 100% or 1000%, then the state starts printing money for everyone so they can afford those skyrocketing prices? according to this theory?And hyperinflation is something completely different. It requires the collapse of productivity, or the forced export of the products of an economy without payment.
Hyperinflation requires the rapid printing of vast amounts of money, but that's an effect, not a cause, of hyperinflation.
And this increase in currency everywhere, requiring consumers to run out quickly to buy stuff, with a wheelbarrow-full of large bills, does or does not contribute to the inflation and cause it to increase still higher?
Are you saying the prices would still increase just as much anyway? even if no new money was "printed"? or does all this new money created have a further inflationary effect, causing the inflation to become even worse?
I came across this item
Myth-Busting: Money Printing Must Create Inflation
Shouldn’t all the recent monetary and fiscal stimulus lead to higher inflation? Maybe not.
blogs.cfainstitute.org
Myth-Busting: Money Printing Must Create Inflation
i.e., debunking the idea that "printing" money causes inflationIt's clear that some crusaders want to debunk the notion that "more money being printed" is what causes inflation.
The argument seems to be based on empirical measurements of what happened when someone expanded money, like banks or the central bank "printing" new money and yet there was no inflation as a result, etc.
Or showing other causes of inflation happening even when there was reduction of the money supply, or reduced "printing" of money. Or also there could be increased money supply and yet reduced money "printing" and so on. Much semantics about how money supply is measured and what is money "creation" or "printing" etc. Also, in addition to the multiple causes phenomenon, there's also the matter of timing, or the chronology, such as how long it took for some new money issuing act to cause an effect somewhere.
Isn't there at least a consensus that vast money "printing" causes some inflation?
E.g., does anyone deny that if a nation doubles its money supply, by simply "printing" bills, it would cause all prices to rise?
There is still an admission that "too much" money being "printed" or "created" would likely cause inflation or higher prices. But still there is an insistence that there are many other causes of inflation, and these are more important.
The only argument that makes any sense is that an increase of "money" (like massive "printing" of bills) causes some inflation, but otherwise there are likely hundreds of causes, and these other causes might be much more significant if "printing" money is kept very low.
What does it mean to say the "hyperinflation" existed first and only then did the extra money "printed" cause some extra inflation? How do we know that the hyperinflation came before the money was printed?
According to
it's the opposite. In Germany in the 1920s the government "simply printed more money" and this led to hyperinflation. Not that the hyperinflation existed first and then led to the "printing" of money.
In order to pay the striking workers the government simply printed more money. This flood of money led to hyperinflation as the more money was printed, the more prices rose. Prices ran out of control, for example a loaf of bread, which cost 250 marks in January 1923, had risen to 200,000 million marks in November 1923.
How do we know which came first?
The idea that the hyperinflation actually comes first, and ONLY AFTER that is there the money "printing" seems to be a new religious cult doctrine, which has not been proven, other than to use many empirical examples to show how there might be some other patterns of inflation caused in different ways, and that we need considerable inflation for some mystical or cosmic power it exerts on the economy, to give the economy a "shot in the arm" or a "stimulus" in order to cause "economic growth" and cause "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" etc.
Except for this, no one is giving any reason or evidence or theory explaining why we need a certain amount of INFLATION in order to have a healthy economy.
An ongoing deficit could be defended as serving some purpose, as long as it's kept below a certain level as a percent of the total economy. But no one ever gives a coherent argument why we need to have inflation. The Fed seems to have a doctrine that a 2% inflation rate is healthy as something regular to strive for. But it has never given a reason for this, other than the usual "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble nonsense.
Can someone explain why the economy needs a regular inflation rate above 0%? without the usual "economic stimulus" babble? Even the "economic growth" babble makes no sense, in that the only meaning of "economic growth" is more and more dollars spent (or more and more GDP), and by that logic, all we need in order to make the economy perform better is more and more bridges to nowhere. Because every dollar wasted on another unneeded program is another dollar of "economic growth" -- and isn't some of this "economic growth" actually more harm than good?
When we define "growth" as simply more spending, spending, spending (on anything no matter how wasteful), more "jobs! jobs! jobs!" and more waste and pork and corporate welfare, where is the evidence that we're better off from all this spending just for the sake of spending per se?