o Away

JNugent snipped-for-privacy@mail.com wrote

Nope, that no relevant PhD is needed to point out that Freidman's claim doesnt explain what happened in Germany after WW1, in Zimbabwe and currently in the UK.

Your problem, as always.

Nope, just pointing to the EVIDENCE that refutes his claim.

That is argument by authority which is never valid.

It wasnt that long ago that Rutherford proclaimed that nothing useful would ever come out of nuclear physics.

Pity about nukes and the atom bomb etc.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Because your demand is mindless argument by authority.

Have fun explaining why what I listed doesnt blow Friedman's stupid claim completely out of the f****ng water.

Please explain what you mean. Use specifics, please.

I do differ from those who claim professorial-level knowledge and expertise within a specific academic discipline but display none of it.

What is it? You have certainly posted no such "evidence" in this thread.

So you can't demonstrate your expertise in Economics?

That's alright. I doubt that anyone reading this thread was under the impression that you could.

That is what you are trying to do right now.

Do you actually know what a university IS?

Let's see what you "list below"...

Ah... you listed *nothing".

What a surprise, Prof.

JNugent snipped-for-privacy@mail.com wrote

None of those were due to a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than an output.

I did nothing of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Germany after WW1, Zimbabwe and currently the UK.

There you go, lying thru your f****ng teeth, as always.

Don't need that, as I said. ALL I need is the EVIDENCE that I presented.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Yep, and have more than one degree from one of the best in my country.

Still there in the quoting, f****it.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Production in those cases must have increased phenomenally then, because in those cases, the government had printed literally insane amounts of fiat currency. Nobody in Germany would have bought a loaf with a wheelbarrow of high-denomination notes (the usual imagery) if wheelbarrows full of high-denomination notes had been hard to come by.

Exactly so, and thank you.

Or perhaps RS thinks that German banks had always had adequate reserves of 1,000,000,000,000 mark banknotes on hand in case a thousand local trillionaires each came in wanting to cash a cheque.

Joe snipped-for-privacy@jretrading.com wrote

No it didnt in any of those cases and that's why Friedman's stupid claim has been blown completely out of the f****ng water.

That's not the quantity of money is and that didnt happen in the UK to produce the current big spike in inflation.

That is a myth.

That isnt what has produced the current inflation spike in the UK.

And with Germany and Zimbabwe, what was printed wasnt the quantity of money.

Nothing to do with the quantity of money.

"99.5% of government Covid debt has been matched by so called Bank of England ​‘money printing’"

"While total borrowing between March 2020 and July 2021 was £413bn, the Bank of England’s total purchase of government debt was £412bn, or

Your claim was something rather different. You asserted that the legendary German inflation, and later, the equally infamous Zimbabwean inflation, had not been caused by the printing of excess quantities of money.

Where did the three-trillion mark banknotes come from, then?

The work of a gang of forgers?

Saying such things doesn't help you.

That's not the quantity of money that Friedman was stupidly going on about.

And doesnt explain why the spike in inflation only happened after the russian sanctions and the destruction of the Nordsteam gas line which is the real reason for the current spike in inflation.

And was the govt RESPONSE to the immense inflation, not the cause of it.

Nope, dope.

That was actually the govt RESPONSE to the massive level of inflation, not the CAUSE of it in either case.

Irrelevant to the fact that the bank notes were not the quantity of money.

Nothing you spew ever helps you.

You STILL havent explained why the current inflation spike in the UK has due to the quantity of money that didnt actually increase.

What do you say caused it then?

After all, there's no point in a bakery trying to charge 345,000,000 marks for a couple of brioches if the average earnings are 100 marks a week, is there?

Yeah, right, so greengrocers just increased the price of a cabbage to

Completely falsified by other economists. And commoin sense lets say the price of bread is £1 a loaf, and contains £0.60p of wheat. Wheat is used in many products. Lets say there is a shortage of wheat. Framers need to recover what they have spent on producing less wheat, The market price is higher, so the loaf gets more expnensive

Money supply has not changed, but inflation has increased QED

When?

Where?

By whom?

How?

The University of Real Life and "Common Sense" Humanities Faculty gets a lot of Usenet lip service. From within the academic world, though, not so much.

But take this as a compliment... Your "...lets say the price of bread is £1 a loaf, and contains £0.60p of wheat...", believe it or not, is a good example of the kind of reasoning employed by Karl Marx when writing "Capital". The book is full of examples that sort of "common sense".

Yes... I was interested enough to actually read it (in English, of course) when a student.

That was never an issue. It is not an explanation of inflation. That's because prices changing (which they do all the time, relative to each other) is not a symptom of inflation.

A rising price is not a proof of inflation. A falling price is not proof of deflation.

QED?

Nothing has been demonstrated by it!

Money supply does not actually have to increase / expand in order for inflation to be manifested. Even if we were exclusively using gold coinage as money (and even if half of it were sunk in the hold of a stricken transatlantic liner), prices would increase in an inflationary wave when and if production fell so far that a given amount of gold coinage could only buy less than it used to.

Shows how out of touch they are.

So Friedman was just plain wrong, as I said originally.

Much more than a pound these days, and the value of the wheat will be nowhere near 60% of the retail price. Most of the input costs are transport, moving all the raw materials around from farm to dockside to dockside to flour mill to end user. Repeat for salt, sugar, oils and any other ingredients, plus energy to bake it, plus wages of the people involved along the line, then more transport to the point of sale.

I put "Money supply UK" into google and got this

Pick the 5 year graph. It shows money supply at about 18... err... I think it's trillion pounds ... in 2020 rising to a peak of over 25 whatever they are by late 2022. It's got data for M0, M2 , M3 and M4 and they look broadly similar.

Do you have a source that shows money supply has not changed?

Andy

Did you, Prof?

What year was your Nobel Prize, again?