5 ms·

On 1) How can you say the inflation argument has been proven wrong? Since the financial crisis in 2008 houses in Austria have more than doubled in prices. I fi

On 1) How can you say the inflation argument has been proven wrong? Since the financial crisis in 2008 houses in Austria have more than doubled in prices. I find your arguments very naive. You entirely ignore the misuse of governmental power - history has shown us. Also please consider that increasing the money supply steals money (the value of money) from everyone's checking account over the long term. At the same time consider that QE money is not retrieved by the people who need it most (see cantillon effect).

Barrin92 6y ago
>houses in Austria have more than doubled in prices Inflation measures the general price level in the economy (in the form of a basket of goods), not the prices of individual commodities. The inflation in Austria has been at a steady 1-3%[1] over the last decade, roughly in line with inflation targets. Housing prices have risen, like in many other regions, due to a lack of supply of housing in the market, not changes in the money supply. These vague rants about governmental power are exactly what makes it to read any of these Mises articles with a straight face, it is nothing else but libertarian ideology. [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/375291/inflation-rate-in-austria/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/375291/inflation-rate-in...
- I_am_tiberius 6y ago
  >Housing prices have risen, like in many other regions, due to a lack of supply of housing in the market, not changes in the money supply. Don't you think demand/supply is strongly impacted by the actions taken by the FED or ECB (eg interests - since 2008 it's difficult to find better investment objects than real estate or Gold in order to retain the asset's value - loans are pretty cheap). >These vague rants about governmental power are exactly what makes it to read any of these Mises articles with a straight face, it is nothing else but libertarian ideology. Does that mean you are sure the government won't use interest rates as a mean for controlling the economy? Wouldn't you feel very bad when being forced to spend your money in order to not be punished with negative interest rates? Without cash you won't even be able to escape. Negative interest rates are just one example. I'm sure that this is happening if we don't act. I can't see why you consider such things vague rants.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    The supply of housing isn't impacted by monetary policy. If people were free to built, then demand for housing could be satisfied rather than seeing these increases in price. Increases in money supply don't increase prices if output rises, only if more money chases the same amounts of goods. Which again, is not happening as born out by data. >Does that mean you are sure the government won't use interest rates as a mean for controlling the economy? The central bank, which acts independently, and not the government, uses interest rates to control the economy, but that's the point. It's a good thing, not a bad thing. If we had the digital currency in question and the central bank can send everyone two thousand bucks during a pandemic induced depression to stabilize demand rather than completely sound policy being held hostage by politics we would all be better off. We are right now literally living through a situation that shows what the benefit of such tools would be.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >If people were free to built, then demand for housing could be satisfied rather than seeing these increases in price. Increases in money supply don't increase prices if output rises, only if more money chases the same amounts of goods. But that's the problem: housing isn't like most goods (eg. TVs) that can be produced in a factory in quantities so massive that everyone can have one. The same can't be said of housing, or more specifically land eg. there's only so many space for a semi-detached house within 30 minutes driving distance of the bay area. > Which again, is not happening as born out by data. Source?
tw25550443 6y ago
> increasing the money supply steals money (the value of money) from everyone's checking account over the long term. It's worse than that. If inflation was uniform and instantaneous, expanding the money supply would just result in a corresponding change in all prices and account balances. It'd be like trying to redefine the litre in order to get more gas from the pump. As such, the state wouldn't bother trying to change it. Inflation "works" insofar as it allows those who receive the new money earlier to buy goods before the suppliers realize their prices are too low for the new money supply, and in so doing drive up the prices faced by those who receive the new money later. The aggregate effect is to transfer money from those who receive the money last to those that receive it first (banks, financial institutions, forex, etc.)

Barrin92 6y ago

>houses in Austria have more than doubled in prices Inflation measures the general price level in the economy (in the form of a basket of goods), not the prices of individual commodities. The inflation in Austria has been at a steady 1-3%[1] over the last decade, roughly in line with inflation targets. Housing prices have risen, like in many other regions, due to a lack of supply of housing in the market, not changes in the money supply. These vague rants about governmental power are exactly what makes it to read any of these Mises articles with a straight face, it is nothing else but libertarian ideology. [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/375291/inflation-rate-in-austria/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/375291/inflation-rate-in...

I_am_tiberius 6y ago
>Housing prices have risen, like in many other regions, due to a lack of supply of housing in the market, not changes in the money supply. Don't you think demand/supply is strongly impacted by the actions taken by the FED or ECB (eg interests - since 2008 it's difficult to find better investment objects than real estate or Gold in order to retain the asset's value - loans are pretty cheap). >These vague rants about governmental power are exactly what makes it to read any of these Mises articles with a straight face, it is nothing else but libertarian ideology. Does that mean you are sure the government won't use interest rates as a mean for controlling the economy? Wouldn't you feel very bad when being forced to spend your money in order to not be punished with negative interest rates? Without cash you won't even be able to escape. Negative interest rates are just one example. I'm sure that this is happening if we don't act. I can't see why you consider such things vague rants.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  The supply of housing isn't impacted by monetary policy. If people were free to built, then demand for housing could be satisfied rather than seeing these increases in price. Increases in money supply don't increase prices if output rises, only if more money chases the same amounts of goods. Which again, is not happening as born out by data. >Does that mean you are sure the government won't use interest rates as a mean for controlling the economy? The central bank, which acts independently, and not the government, uses interest rates to control the economy, but that's the point. It's a good thing, not a bad thing. If we had the digital currency in question and the central bank can send everyone two thousand bucks during a pandemic induced depression to stabilize demand rather than completely sound policy being held hostage by politics we would all be better off. We are right now literally living through a situation that shows what the benefit of such tools would be.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >If people were free to built, then demand for housing could be satisfied rather than seeing these increases in price. Increases in money supply don't increase prices if output rises, only if more money chases the same amounts of goods. But that's the problem: housing isn't like most goods (eg. TVs) that can be produced in a factory in quantities so massive that everyone can have one. The same can't be said of housing, or more specifically land eg. there's only so many space for a semi-detached house within 30 minutes driving distance of the bay area. > Which again, is not happening as born out by data. Source?

tw25550443 6y ago

> increasing the money supply steals money (the value of money) from everyone's checking account over the long term. It's worse than that. If inflation was uniform and instantaneous, expanding the money supply would just result in a corresponding change in all prices and account balances. It'd be like trying to redefine the litre in order to get more gas from the pump. As such, the state wouldn't bother trying to change it. Inflation "works" insofar as it allows those who receive the new money earlier to buy goods before the suppliers realize their prices are too low for the new money supply, and in so doing drive up the prices faced by those who receive the new money later. The aggregate effect is to transfer money from those who receive the money last to those that receive it first (banks, financial institutions, forex, etc.)