4 ms·

Not exactly, that is true - it is rather hard to describe international trade in 140 characters-or-less. It can not be denied that there is a lot of truth to th

Not exactly, that is true - it is rather hard to describe international trade in 140 characters-or-less. It can not be denied that there is a lot of truth to the statement though even if it does not describe all factors of influence: > a system where TPTB get to fudge the books as they see fit This depends on whether the media are in to the party or not but when they are this is mostly true. > impose taxes via intentional inflation This is a fact in those countries which have control over their own currency. > and keep tabs on your every transaction This is a fact and one of the driving forces behind the "cashless society".

epgui 5y ago
1) Central banks aren’t regulated by the media. 2) The expansion of the money supply is not necessarily inflationary. 3) Inflation is very different from taxation: if you hold cash you’re supposed to circulate it, either by spending it or by investing it. Inflation disincentivizes cash-hoarding, and also deflated the value of any debt you might have.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  1) ...but I can only assume you realise they are sensitive to political pressure which again derives from public opinion which is controlled by the media... 2) ...but it generally is just that, inflationary. The fact that there can be exceptions to the rule does not make the rule less valid. 3) ...and inflation is also used by governments to provide funds (by "printing money" in some way or other, the actual implementation depends on how the currency is regulated) which otherwise would be provided through taxation, leading to inflation and as such reducing tax payer's purchasing power - just like taxation does.
  - epgui 5y ago
    1) central bank loss of independence is one of the hallmark of failed central banks. I hardly think it's reasonable to think that all central banks are dysfunctional in such a way: while these institutions can and do break down, they are not designed to break down in this way. You're free to argue whether a given central bank is or is not sufficiently independent, but that's a more specific problem than the over-generalization made here. 2) it's not an exception to the rule at all. The rule for inflation doesn't mention how much money exists, it only mentions how much money circulates. More money existing does not necessarily mean more money circulating (eg.: money tends to concentrate in certain places for various reasons, rather than diffusing freely). 3) Sure, but two things that have similar features are not always similar in essence or nature. Swords and needles are both sharp, but you wouldn't argue that they're essentially the same. In fact in your own example, taxation for certain purposes could be either inflationary or deflationary (eg.: austerity measures, including those that involve taxation, are deflationary by design).

epgui 5y ago

1) Central banks aren’t regulated by the media. 2) The expansion of the money supply is not necessarily inflationary. 3) Inflation is very different from taxation: if you hold cash you’re supposed to circulate it, either by spending it or by investing it. Inflation disincentivizes cash-hoarding, and also deflated the value of any debt you might have.

the_third_wave 5y ago
1) ...but I can only assume you realise they are sensitive to political pressure which again derives from public opinion which is controlled by the media... 2) ...but it generally is just that, inflationary. The fact that there can be exceptions to the rule does not make the rule less valid. 3) ...and inflation is also used by governments to provide funds (by "printing money" in some way or other, the actual implementation depends on how the currency is regulated) which otherwise would be provided through taxation, leading to inflation and as such reducing tax payer's purchasing power - just like taxation does.
- epgui 5y ago
  1) central bank loss of independence is one of the hallmark of failed central banks. I hardly think it's reasonable to think that all central banks are dysfunctional in such a way: while these institutions can and do break down, they are not designed to break down in this way. You're free to argue whether a given central bank is or is not sufficiently independent, but that's a more specific problem than the over-generalization made here. 2) it's not an exception to the rule at all. The rule for inflation doesn't mention how much money exists, it only mentions how much money circulates. More money existing does not necessarily mean more money circulating (eg.: money tends to concentrate in certain places for various reasons, rather than diffusing freely). 3) Sure, but two things that have similar features are not always similar in essence or nature. Swords and needles are both sharp, but you wouldn't argue that they're essentially the same. In fact in your own example, taxation for certain purposes could be either inflationary or deflationary (eg.: austerity measures, including those that involve taxation, are deflationary by design).