Government not interjecting too much money into the system, or otherwise debasing the value of the currency, will create zero monetary inflation.
Government not interjecting too much money into the system, or otherwise debasing the value of the currency, will create zero monetary inflation.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
zelmo1234 (03-20-2023)
Any spending that the federal government does will never be absorbed and paid back by the economy.
You mentioned Roads, if it is a project using federal funding they have to pay prevailing wage costing the tax payers more to get the same project done! Thus not as many projects can be completed in the course of the construction season.
At best you get 15 cents on a dollar when the government is in charge of the spending.
People keep looking to government for the solution, and in the words of Ronald Reagan, "Government is the Problem"
I am a little concerned about you thoughts on Capitalism, If you want to see inflation, try socialism on for size.
AS for Business, there has really only been one true Monopoly in the History of the USA and that was Standard Oil. And of course the product at that time was kerosene, when the Government broke up Standard oil in to several new companies, the price of a gallon of kerosene went up by nearly 50%
And of Course made J.D. Rockefeller the richest man in the world. when the government tries to pick winners and losers, the public is the one that gets screwed.
Peter1469 (03-20-2023)
In terms of money as a commodity, the most offensive to me is when money is traded, so it's value is constantly in play. It makes little difference domestically but does make a difference in terms of the price of imports and exports. Where the price of imports are affected by a drop in the dollar's value, it results in an increase in the price of imported goods.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Let's see, let's take 8 million men out of the labor force and stick them in the military. Necessity demands it, but there was an opportunity cost to that of course, and we won't even look at the value of lost lives which itself was absolutely enormous. Then, back home, because production shifted to weapons, butter went to guns, consumers faced straight up rationing. Some Keynesian economists will look at official GDP stats, but when government imposes like that, its just numbers attached to a central order. The 'price' of a B17. Now don't get me wrong, war is wrong and to the extent war is necessary, well then it is necessary, but war IS bad for the economy.
If it were so great we absolutely could contrive a war economy right now. We could declare war against the 'penguin threat' of Antarctica and put the economy on a war footing. Draft 10 million people out of the civilian work force and have them invade Antarctica and occupy it. They can eat penguin and leopard seals too while they are down there.
War economies produce things that in ordinary times ordinary people really don't have any use for, there may be a necessity for it, but different thing.
Dr. Who (03-25-2023)
Peter1469 (03-25-2023)
MisterVeritis (03-25-2023)