🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2104@blue.cis.pitt.edu> wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell) writes:
>
>I did not say that I thought government-induced inflation was a natural
>phenomenon- I was referring to the more general concept of inflation
>(which may occur with or without the existence of money), which is 
>the cost of holding onto money or other things of value.  Due to the
>fact that something might be put to productive use, things held onto
>(money, for one) will decrease in value, as you forego there 
>prxx their productive capacity. As for government-induced inflation,
>that is obvioulsly another matter altogether.

I would tend to think that the price of things held onto might rise or
fall, depending on what they are. In a productive economy with a hard
currency, the unit of currency has a tendency to rise in value, so
holding on to it is good (hard currencies encourage *saving*).

On the other hand, if you are holding on to something perishable or
something which might become outdated, *its* price would fall, but not
necessarily everything else. The economy is not static, and usually
replaces things which become of little use.

Over all, one of the main characteristics of progress *is* saving, holding
on to things, accumulating capital for investment and further production,
since from productivity comes wealth. You simply want to be able to judge
when and when not to hold on to things.

Oddly enough, I believe Keynes advocated spending and discouraged saving,
apparently not understanding simple supply and demand (greater supply ==
more stuff == lower prices for stuff == higher standard of living for all)

Is this what you are talking about?

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)