Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Panda

Cost Push Inflation - Not A Problem

Recommended Posts

An old article but where we are i feel, i know Australia.................

But.........basically the article states the Central Bank in Oz like the BoE will tolerate cost pushed (petrol, food, energy etc) inflation but will not tolerate wage push inflation.........so we know.

Like i stated before, its all about the cost of human resource, if inflation creeps into wages then old Merv will have no hesitation in raising rates, so inflating the debt away will be an option but only with higher corresponding interest rates................tails you win..tails you lose if you are in debt and want pay rises.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/reliving-the-70s-in-fighting-inflation/story-e6frg9pf-1111116286867

But even if we have established that the RBA can reduce inflation if it is serious, another question is whether it should do so. In particular, should the RBA stick to its 2-3 per cent inflation target "on average" when conditions are far from normal? Rather, should the central bank allow inflation to remain at, say, 4 per cent for a period?

Viewed in this light, the RBA would say that it would be foolish to ignore cost-push inflation. If the cost-push pressures are particularly severe, inflation may remain above target for an extended period. The RBA's February 2008 inflation forecast, which depicted inflation above 3 per cent until 2010, appears consistent with such a view.

However, abandoning the 3 per cent anchor now would make the subsequent task of returning inflation to an acceptable level much more difficult. And the point of having a flexible inflation target is that the central bank can tolerate a temporary period of high inflation.

That's what the German Bundesbank did in the 1970s.

The thing which a central bank can't tolerate, however, is if higher inflation starts to creep into wage settlements. This would guarantee that inflation will remain higher for longer. This is something we are seeing in several developing economies, where rising food prices have resulted in large wage gains.

The real problem with cost-push inflation is that it is associated with rising prices but falling growth. As such, the RBA will be attacked by those who think it is not doing enough to control inflation, as well as those who think it is not doing enough to support growth.

p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great post and thanks for the link. Cost push inflation cannot be controlled with interest rate rises, because it fundamentally has nothing to do with interest rates, or at least, nothing to do with the interest rates that are under the control of the central bank of the affected nation.

That is what all of the ranters here ranting about 3% or 5% inflation simply don't understand. Raising rates in the face of cost push inflation could make matters worse and create more cost push inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An old article but where we are i feel, i know Australia.................

But.........basically the article states the Central Bank in Oz like the BoE will tolerate cost pushed (petrol, food, energy etc) inflation but will not tolerate wage push inflation.........so we know.

There wouldn't be a problem with demands for higher wages if price inflation wasn't so high. People see their spending power and standard of living dropping so they want more money to compensate. What they should be demanding is that the authorities bring inflation under control but that's another argument.

Clearly TPTB feel that they can keep workers under the thumb and simply impoverish them for the financial benefit of the banking industry. I think that they'll find out that making people poorer (by allowing inflation to rip whilst suppressing wages) has the same end result in terms of depressing the economy as what they 'fear' from increasing interest rates to prevent inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been in Australia three times in the past two years..............Australia does have a cost push problem.

The cost of living in Australia is high and rising, wages are not suppressed yet but will be by the coming rising unemployment. They have funding troubles, their big four compete globally for external funding due to the shortfall of local savings. High interest rate s are used to attract foreign money used to lend out locally. They say a 20% fall in property in the land of Oz would send the big four under water?

Australia is a mess, high currency, high interest rates trying to control cost push inflation while wages lag making the situation worse.

With the carry trade and the high cost of commodities..................not sure where Oz is heading but it don't look pretty.

Whereas here in the UK, it really is rock...hard place...........But it is all self created by the CB, Merv only has himself to blame for the mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viewed in this light, the RBA would say that it would be foolish to ignore cost-push inflation. If the cost-push pressures are particularly severe, inflation may remain above target for an extended period. The RBA's February 2008 inflation forecast, which depicted inflation above 3 per cent until 2010, appears consistent with such a view.

However, abandoning the 3 per cent anchor now would make the subsequent task of returning inflation to an acceptable level much more difficult. And the point of having a flexible inflation target is that the central bank can tolerate a temporary period of high inflation.

That's what the German Bundesbank did in the 1970s.

The thing which a central bank can't tolerate, however, is if higher inflation starts to creep into wage settlements. This would guarantee that inflation will remain higher for longer. This is something we are seeing in several developing economies, where rising food prices have resulted in large wage gains.

The real problem with cost-push inflation is that it is associated with rising prices but falling growth. As such, the RBA will be attacked by those who think it is not doing enough to control inflation, as well as those who think it is not doing enough to support growth.

p

Hi Panda,

A short acknowledgement of the source of this would be nice - think I put it on the newsblog comment this morning. Uunless of course we happened to look for the same thing at the same time.

@Skepticus - I think it is more accurate to say that the central bank does not have full influence on cost push inflation but it is quite capable of deflate other part of the RPI/CPI basket to balance things out a little bit. And of course, enough central bank doing(BoE can't do this alone) this then the demand on those 'cost push' stuff will diminish. Also of course, BoE interest have effect on the exchange rate.

On the flip side though, central bank are happy to leave cost pull disinflation to keep interest low and allow asset prices inflating through the roof. When CPI is low, due to external factors Central bank are pretty happy for the wages to rise.

Conclusion - central bank has bias to inflate and the best they can do is to admit that and say publicly that there priority is to pro nominal growth and price stability is a nice to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been in Australia three times in the past two years..............Australia does have a cost push problem.

The cost of living in Australia is high and rising, wages are not suppressed yet but will be by the coming rising unemployment. They have funding troubles, their big four compete globally for external funding due to the shortfall of local savings. High interest rate s are used to attract foreign money used to lend out locally. They say a 20% fall in property in the land of Oz would send the big four under water?

Australia is a mess, high currency, high interest rates trying to control cost push inflation while wages lag making the situation worse.

With the carry trade and the high cost of commodities..................not sure where Oz is heading but it don't look pretty.

quite. there has been a lot of breathless admiration for the oz dollar on HPC and ofc it makes no sense given all the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Skepticus - I think it is more accurate to say that the central bank does not have full influence on cost push inflation but it is quite capable of deflate other part of the RPI/CPI basket to balance things out a little bit.

no it can't do that. raising rates will simply squash demand in all sectors except those where cost push inflation is biting) which will send unemployment up and the currency downwards.

you can see the truth of that by observing that whenever UK house prices fall, the pound falls. And vice versa.

So you raise rates, you crush housing demand then the currency will decline and simply add what was gained in house price deflation on top of the price of already inflated commodity imports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas here in the UK, it really is rock...hard place...........But it is all self created by the CB, Merv only has himself to blame for the mess.

nope, the three factors to blame for HPI are (reorder them as you see fit):

1. lack of a land value tax

2. risk taking by banks

3. a long period of capital inflow from regions in asia and europe with excess savings.

4. a long run up in the UK deficit-per-capita over a period of 40 years

arguably 3 is the causation for 2, since the banks look for somewhere, anywhere to loan the foreign funds that are being deposited with them.

merv et al could have done something about 2, but its hard to see how given their global status, and in any case the RBA is as much or more guilty of failing on (2) than the BoE. I also think 2 would have simply caused the capital inflow to spill into other areas such as unsecured consumer credit, wage inflation spiral, or into the stock market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it can't do that. raising rates will simply squash demand in all sectors except those where cost push inflation is biting) which will send unemployment up and the currency downwards.

That is why there is a CPI basket. Or do it the US way to exclude food and energy which is the most 'cost push' areas and use that CPI index honestly.

you can see the truth of that by observing that whenever UK house prices fall, the pound falls. And vice versa.

There is certainly some correlation since the traders now think UK Plc produces nothing and it is a housing bet. However though,

GBP was doing nicely even after the RICS data and was only tanked when China slowing news came through (and the associated DJI tanking).

Also, the ultra low interest is simply causing continue misallocation of capital into housing (e.g. radio 5 winchester lady who said they did not have much margin to play with but yet go and bid for the house above asking anyway)

So you raise rates, you crush housing demand then the currency will decline and simply add what was gained in house price deflation on top of the price of already inflated commodity imports.

I disagree. Before the series of rate cuts, i.e circa 2007, interest up means GBP up. Recent examples in NZD/AUD, interest up, AUD/NZD up. Asian currencies as well, Indian rupee up when rates are put up.

and...hope there is no injinisation of this thread....

Edited by easybetman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great post and thanks for the link. Cost push inflation cannot be controlled with interest rate rises, because it fundamentally has nothing to do with interest rates, or at least, nothing to do with the interest rates that are under the control of the central bank of the affected nation.

That is what all of the ranters here ranting about 3% or 5% inflation simply don't understand. Raising rates in the face of cost push inflation could make matters worse and create more cost push inflation.

Agreed.

Interest rate rises only work with a fixed money supply, not one where random bankers can create infinite sums out of thin ******* air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the ultra low interest is simply causing continue misallocation of capital into housing (e.g. radio 5 winchester lady who said they did not have much margin to play with but yet go and bid for the house above asking anyway)

Sorry, I thought housing had turned down now?

I disagree. Before the series of rate cuts, i.e circa 2007, interest up means GBP up. Recent examples in NZD/AUD, interest up, AUD/NZD up. Asian currencies as well, Indian rupee up when rates are put up.

you have the causation wrong. In oz it goes:

1. capital inflow

2. inflow causes HPI and wage inflation

3. RBA raises rates to restrain 2.

thats exactly what happened during our own housing bubble. capital inflow causes inflation and rising currency, and rates are raised to try and restrain that.

and...hope there is no injinisation of this thread....

too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, Panda.

It's all about Inflation expectations now. If this gets traction than King will have to act. He pretty well indicated it this week.

The message is - you're all getting a temporary reprieve because the circumstances demand it. Be grateful. But push your luck and I'll be FORCED to take it away. Rates will have to rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There wouldn't be a problem with demands for higher wages if price inflation wasn't so high. People see their spending power and standard of living dropping so they want more money to compensate. What they should be demanding is that the authorities bring inflation under control but that's another argument.

Clearly TPTB feel that they can keep workers under the thumb and simply impoverish them for the financial benefit of the banking industry. I think that they'll find out that making people poorer (by allowing inflation to rip whilst suppressing wages) has the same end result in terms of depressing the economy as what they 'fear' from increasing interest rates to prevent inflation.

The continued Govt obsession with raising fuel duties (already the highest in the western world) pushing up prices for everything we do or buy, sucks money out of the economy which could be spent on keeping people in jobs and business afloat.

It's obscene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I thought housing had turned down now?

Not according to the nice Winchester lady. (see the HPC radio 5 thread)....

you have the causation wrong. In oz it goes:

1. capital inflow

2. inflow causes HPI and wage inflation

3. RBA raises rates to restrain 2.

thats exactly what happened during our own housing bubble. capital inflow causes inflation and rising currency, and rates are raised to try and restrain that.

It is of course a loop around 1,2,3 and not exactly 1->2->3 (it goes 3->1->2 and then at some point 2 cause 1). Currency is always complex of course - all these capital flow and carry trade effects etc. So, you reckon if BoE raise rate then GBP will go down? Do you also think if BoJ raise rate, Yen will go down also ?

How about the other possibility - BoE raise rate, carry trade reverse + capital flow, then GBP goes up, then housing go up more..

I thought traditional thinking is that rate up then it attracts capital flow ?

One can never be too sure when it comes to something this complex.. Also, the dynamic is never a straight line rather hyperbolic/bell - at some points, the same factors cause reverse reactions.

too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The continued Govt obsession with raising fuel duties (already the highest in the western world) pushing up prices for everything we do or buy, sucks money out of the economy which could be spent on keeping people in jobs and business afloat.

It's obscene.

Yawn. No they're not. Must have typed this a dozen times;

Netherlands, u/l petrol - €1.55 / litre (£1.31)

Denmark - 10.99 krone (£1.25)

Norway - 12.68 krone (£1.32)

http://www.theaa.com/onlinenews/allaboutcars/fuel/2010/july2010.pdf

Diesel is pricey here, with only Norway more expensive, petrol isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From jsmineset.com:

Bloomberg announced the Fed is buying Treasuries on the open market today.

The process of a central bank buying the debt of the nation it represents is called "Debt Monetization."

The following is a reasonable review of what the process is and the results thereof. This time the form of the result will be "Currency Induced Cost Push Inflation."

Gold will trade at $1650 and above.

Monetizing debt

In many countries the government has assigned exclusive power to issue or print its national currency to independently operated central banks. For example, in the USA the independently owned and operated Federal Reserve banks do this.[1] Such governments thereby disavow the overly convenient ’slippery slope’ option of paying their bills by printing new currency. They must instead pay with currency already in circulation, else finance deficits by issuing new bonds, and selling them to the public or to their central bank so as to acquire the necessary money. For the bonds to end up in the central bank it must conduct an open market purchase. This action increases the monetary base through the money creation process. This process of financing government spending is called monetizing the debt.[2] Monetizing debt is thus a two step process where the government issues debt to finance its spending and the central bank purchases the debt from the public. The public is left with an increased supply of high powered money.

Effects on inflation

When government deficits are financed through this method of debt monetization the outcome is an increase in the monetary base, or the money supply. If a budget deficit persists for a substantial period of time then the monetary base will also increase, shifting the aggregate demand curve to the right leading to a rise in the price level.[3]

To summarize: a deficit can be the source of sustained inflation only if it is persistent rather than temporary and if the government finances it by creating money (through monetizing the debt), rather than leaving bonds in the hands of the public.[4]

Examples

Monetizing the debt can be used as a component of quantitative easing strategies, which involve the creation of new currency by the central bank, which may be used to purchase government debt, or can be used in other ways.

However, there can be an insidious effect. As one observer noted:

When governments reach the point where they are borrowing to pay the interest on their borrowing they are coming dangerously close to running a sovereign Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes have a way of ending unhappily. To get out of the Ponzi trap, governments will have to increase tax revenues, or cut spending, or monetize the debt–or most likely do some combination of all three. [5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization

http://jsmineset.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From jsmineset.com:

Bloomberg announced the Fed is buying Treasuries on the open market today.

The process of a central bank buying the debt of the nation it represents is called "Debt Monetization."

The following is a reasonable review of what the process is and the results thereof. This time the form of the result will be "Currency Induced Cost Push Inflation."

Gold will trade at $1650 and above.

Monetizing debt

In many countries the government has assigned exclusive power to issue or print its national currency to independently operated central banks. For example, in the USA the independently owned and operated Federal Reserve banks do this.[1] Such governments thereby disavow the overly convenient ’slippery slope’ option of paying their bills by printing new currency. They must instead pay with currency already in circulation, else finance deficits by issuing new bonds, and selling them to the public or to their central bank so as to acquire the necessary money. For the bonds to end up in the central bank it must conduct an open market purchase. This action increases the monetary base through the money creation process. This process of financing government spending is called monetizing the debt.[2] Monetizing debt is thus a two step process where the government issues debt to finance its spending and the central bank purchases the debt from the public. The public is left with an increased supply of high powered money.

Fed is buying in the secondary market, most probably using the money it borrows from the commercial banks' reserve deposit kept at the Fed (which the Fed pays 0.25% interest). This doesn't count as monetisation.

When Fed is buying in the primary market using freshly created electronic 'money' then we will have a problem - some are adamant that this will never happen though I am not so sure.

Edited by easybetman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To summarize: a deficit can be the source of sustained inflation only if it is persistent rather than temporary and if the government finances it by creating money (through monetizing the debt), rather than leaving bonds in the hands of the public.[4]

Yes, but it doesn't stop there - all borrowing is unsustainable. If you have a positive inflation target, you will run out of money to borrow (a liquidity crisis) unless you print money.

In the long run, having a positive CPI target requires the printing of money. Which begs several questions:

1. Why are we signed up to the Maastricht Treaty, forbidding the printing of money, when either deflation or printing would be the only choices at some point?

2. Who and why adopted a positive inflation target, when they should have known full well that these problems would manifest at some point in the future?

You must either have 0% target or you print money as you go along. I'd argue for the balance provided by the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but it doesn't stop there - all borrowing is unsustainable. If you have a positive inflation target, you will run out of money to borrow (a liquidity crisis) unless you print money.

that only means that the supply of money cannot be finite in a credit economy. That's why gold got dumped. And of course non finite money isn't really money!

In the long run, having a positive CPI target requires the printing of money. Which begs several questions:

1. Why are we signed up to the Maastricht Treaty, forbidding the printing of money, when either deflation or printing would be the only choices at some point?

but european base money has been increasing YoY since the EU was founded. The US printed 500 billion in new base money between 1987 and 2007 alone, just to keep up with broad money expansion.

2. Who and why adopted a positive inflation target, when they should have known full well that these problems would manifest at some point in the future?

that is a very good question. As to who, I'm not sure. The why is obvious : because of the (imagined) 0% bound on rates. The fact is we have a pure credit economy masquerading as a money+credit economy. The latter is unstable and they know it which is why the try and stay away from 0, because it goes tits up as you approach 0 - before you actually get there, when the yield curve gets sufficiently flat a liquidity trap sets in.

You must either have 0% target or you print money as you go along. I'd argue for the balance provided by the former.

wrong. A 0% target would still need money printing - because it is quite possible that the money supply expansion is only keeping pace with the productive output capacity of the economy, in which case money must still be printed even though inflation is measured at 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that only means that the supply of money cannot be finite in a credit economy. That's why gold got dumped. And of course non finite money isn't really money!

But we're not in a pure credit economy. Indeed, many are arguing we should be heading other way, back towards what is really money again.

but european base money has been increasing YoY since the EU was founded. The US printed 500 billion in new base money between 1987 and 2007 alone, just to keep up with broad money expansion.

Links? My understanding was that printing money was not allowed under the Maarstricht Treaty (for EU). Obviously, QE is supposed to get around these rules, but it should hardly be a surprise when the printing presses need spinning up.

that is a very good question. As to who, I'm not sure. The why is obvious : because of the (imagined) 0% bound on rates. The fact is we have a pure credit economy masquerading as a money+credit economy. The latter is unstable and they know it which is why the try and stay away from 0, because it goes tits up as you approach 0 - before you actually get there, when the yield curve gets sufficiently flat a liquidity trap sets in.

The (imagine) zero bound on rates seems like a pretty poor excuse for causing so many other problems. It seems to rely on the stupidity of individuals, to not to understand inflation. I doubt this is the case any longer.

It seems to me that a decision needs to be made as to whether we have a pure credit monetary system or a pure money one. I would rather see the latter, with credit being distributed and extended by individuals (like Ripple), rather than being centralised. Essentially, free market credit.

I think people will reject a pure credit monetary system, nor do I think it would be stable. I think we disagree on this point though.

wrong. A 0% target would still need money printing - because it is quite possible that the money supply expansion is only keeping pace with the productive output capacity of the economy, in which case money must still be printed even though inflation is measured at 0.

True, I'll accept that. Short of changing the supply by simply head counting, I'm not sure we have reliable tools to define the productive output capacity of the economy. The central bankers seem to have made a pretty poor job of it so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we're not in a pure credit economy. Indeed, many are arguing we should be heading other way, back towards what is really money again.

yes we are in a pure credit economy. Base money pays interest. The only thing that doesn't is paper cash, and this is where the faultline lies.

Links? My understanding was that printing money was not allowed under the Maarstricht Treaty (for EU). Obviously, QE is supposed to get around these rules, but it should hardly be a surprise when the printing presses need spinning up.

Euro_money_supply_Sept_1998_-_Oct_2007.jpg

seems to me the euro base money has roughly doubled since dec 2001. There is lots of waffle in the EU rules about what is and is not printing money. Presumably ECB open market ops are not counted as printing money. But since they have doubled the base money supply, I call that printing.

The (imagine) zero bound on rates seems like a pretty poor excuse for causing so many other problems. It seems to rely on the stupidity of individuals, to not to understand inflation. I doubt this is the case any longer.

not sure of the point here.

It seems to me that a decision needs to be made as to whether we have a pure credit monetary system or a pure money one. I would rather see the latter, with credit being distributed and extended by individuals (like Ripple), rather than being centralised. Essentially, free market credit.

a ripple economy is a pure credit economy. In a ripple economy people can issue whatever money they like if other people are happy to use it.

the idea of a pure money economy in which the money supply is fixed by government fiat (by either guaranteeing the base money supply is never changed or by decreeing gold will only be accepted for taxes) would soon be rejected by the population, and rightly so. They would just create their own credit (inside) monies and use that.

I think people will reject a pure credit monetary system, nor do I think it would be stable. I think we disagree on this point though.

well, the pure credit economy came into being in 1971 and since then only a handful of libertarians propose returning to the insanity of a fixed money supply. You should not confuse support for that on HPC and on bias-confirming sites like zero hedge with support in the wider population. What the latter want is a sensible fair system that works for the majority, not hard money, which is just an anachronistic libertarian fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes we are in a pure credit economy. Base money pays interest. The only thing that doesn't is paper cash, and this is where the faultline lies.

It's a hybrid. Cash still has a bearing on the banking system.

Euro_money_supply_Sept_1998_-_Oct_2007.jpg

seems to me the euro base money has roughly doubled since dec 2001. There is lots of waffle in the EU rules about what is and is not printing money. Presumably ECB open market ops are not counted as printing money. But since they have doubled the base money supply, I call that printing.

So why the need QE and other attempts to pretend that printing isn't really happening? There is something distinctly dishonest about the whole process.

a ripple economy is a pure credit economy. In a ripple economy people can issue whatever money they like if other people are happy to use it.

the idea of a pure money economy in which the money supply is fixed by government fiat (by either guaranteeing the base money supply is never changed or by decreeing gold will only be accepted for taxes) would soon be rejected by the population, and rightly so. They would just create their own credit (inside) monies and use that.

Credit is just a promise. Anyone can make a promise and should be responsible for the conclusions of this. There is no limit on the supply of promises, nor any reason why they can't be distributed rather than centralised. IMO, there are compelling reasons why they should be distributed (and indeed often are, in the form of invoices).

Whether the promise is to deliver a gram of gold, a tenner, a loaf of bread or anything else is beside the point.

well, the pure credit economy came into being in 1971 and since then only a handful of libertarians propose returning to the insanity of a fixed money supply. You should not confuse support for that on HPC and on bias-confirming sites like zero hedge with support in the wider population. What the latter want is a sensible fair system that works for the majority, not hard money, which is just an anachronistic libertarian fantasy.

The current system seems to try to blend credit with money and ends up with a mess.

There is nothing wrong with individuals extending credit (accepting promises), but logically, it is quite separate from the item (cash, gold, bread etc) being promised. Just because I promise you a tenner, it doesn't mean I have to give it to you (I can default), nor does it mean more tenners need printing up if I don't.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit is just a promise.

so is a tenner.

The current system seems to try to blend credit with money and ends up with a mess.

There is nothing wrong with individuals extending credit (accepting promises), but logically, it is quite separate from the item (cash, gold, bread etc) being promised. Just because I promise you a tenner, it doesn't mean I either have to give it to you (I can default), nor does it mean more tenners need printing up if I don't.

if people are always defaulting left right and centre then there will be no liquidity, the flow of credit and trade will dry up and there will be a very horrible collapse of modern civilisation. Sometimes I think you really don't appreciate the importance of liquidity. In the end, liquidity is just confidence - in one another, in the system.

Implementing some travesty of fixed hard money nonsense would see liquidity dry up completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so is a tenner.

if people are always defaulting left right and centre then there will be no liquidity, the flow of credit and trade will dry up and there will be a very horrible collapse of modern civilisation. Sometimes I think you really don't appreciate the importance of liquidity. In the end, liquidity is just confidence - in one another, in the system.

Implementing some travesty of fixed hard money nonsense would see liquidity dry up completely.

If only history didn't falsify that assertion. The United Kingdom adopted a gold standard on a de facto basis in 1717. We did rather well in the field of commerce, trade and industry thereafter, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so is a tenner.

Not if it is by fiat - while taxes are required to have payment in Sterling, it will have value. A tenner may originally have been a promise of gold, but now it has commodity value, like gold.

if people are always defaulting left right and centre then there will be no liquidity, the flow of credit and trade will dry up and there will be a very horrible collapse of modern civilisation. Sometimes I think you really don't appreciate the importance of liquidity. In the end, liquidity is just confidence - in one another, in the system.

Implementing some travesty of fixed hard money nonsense would see liquidity dry up completely.

This sounds like scaremongering to me.

People will extend as much credit as they have trust in the entity which is making the promise. People will have as much confidence as they do trust. In fact, I would say one is synonymous with the other, as it should be.

Instead, we have a centralised system dictating how much confidence we should have, based on who they think is trustworthy - this system has failed and for reasons central planning so often does: they cannot obtain, nor digest, complete information... only individuals involved in the processes can.

I know who to trust and who not to. Businesses do too. If they make a bad call, they get stung, but that is the way of the world.

Framed against the making of promises, talking about fixed money and liquidity being a problem, seems like a bit of a nonsense.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.