Article View: sci.econ
Article #1686Re: Inflation
From: William B Dwinnell
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:30
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:30
34 lines
2581 bytes
2581 bytes
Okay, first off: I said "'natural' inflation", not "inflation", in the
section of my message which you quoted. What I am saying is: there
is a thing called "inflation", which is a real (vs. nominal, for those
of you who don't understand) increase ionxxx in some price. That is
all it is. It is NOT a change in the money supply. It is an increase
in some real price. Changes in money supply , population, and
governexxxx government activity may cause some part of inflation
(perhaps even most of inflation, depending on the case). But, there
is some portion of inflation, which I referred to as "natural
inflation", which will cxxx occur, even if the government keeps its
hands to itself, the money supply doesn't change, and the population
sits still. It is this portion of inflation which I was referring to
in my own earlier message. My point was that whoever said that
inflation is "wrong" must not understand that at least some portion
of the total amount of inflation is the portion, which I called
"natural inflation", which, it seems to me, is unavoidable. As for
governments share of blame- that is another matter.
Why do I say that there will always be some inflation, no
matter what gov't., population, and money supply do? Simple: the
time value of money. Inflation, when thought of as a real
increase in price, can be directly translated to the cost of holding
onto your money (in your mattress, as opposed to in the bank, or in
some other investment which produces a return). Even is xxxxx
Even if the other 3 sit still, someone will be working, thus, the
bank (for example) will be willing to give you interest on your
money. Let's say that the interest rate is 5%. If you hold onto your
dollar (mark, shilling, etc.), and don't deposit it in the bank,
it will be worthlessxxxxx worth less than a dollar, etc. which
is deposited, and earns that interest: inflation!
All of this boring, rambling argument is why I say that it is
meaningless to attach some sort of "goodnerss" or "Badness" to
that portion of inflation which will happen anyway. As for the rest,
well: that's another story.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2384@blue.cis.pitt.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!pitt.edu!wbdstReferences:
<1993Jan21.211300.8065@athena.mit.edu> <2306@blue.cis.pitt.edu> <93Jan22.120509edt.574@neuron.ai.toronto.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!pitt.edu!wbdst From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell) Newsgroups: sci.econ Subject: Re: Inflation Message-ID: <2384@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Date: 22 Jan 93 23:30:25 GMT References: <1993Jan21.211300.8065@athena.mit.edu> <2306@blue.cis.pitt.edu> <93Jan22.120509edt.574@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> Sender: news+@pitt.edu Organization: University of Pittsburgh Lines: 34