Crash Course: Chapter 10 – Inflation by Chris Martenson
Chapter 10 (Inflation): Dr. Martenson establishes inflation as a monetary phenomenon, defined as the decrease of the value of money, caused by too much money around in relation to goods and services. From 1665 to 1776, 111 years, there was absolutely no inflation. From 1665 to 1905, 240 years, the cost of living stayed roughly the same, aside from brief jumps during wars. Unfortunately for us, there was no settling in terms of inflation after World War I or World War II. The military apparatus was not dismantled, and inflation has accelerated to astonishingly high levels. www.chrismartenson.com
Related Articles
- A World War I Soldier’s Photo Album: Gas, Guts and Eternal Glory? | NEWS 2 ALL . DE
- Why Top Quality Chauffeur Services Can Be Very Good Value For Money | Christian Little
- Height of various stuffs in IT peoples… | Bagesh Singh's Blog – A blog about PHP, Ajax, JavaScript, CSS, Web 2.0 and Web Development
- Victims with ties to U.S. were targeted, Mexican mayor says – 1776 Coalition
- Hand rolling your datalayer « Mint
Tagged with: 1929 • bailout • bernanke • chris • collapse • course • crash • crisis • currency • depression • economic • economy • energy • exponential • Fiat • finance • financial • Gold • Inflation • iraq • market • martenson • money • oil • paul • peak • renewable • ron • silver • stock • war
Filed under: Inflation
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Here is a hard example.
BEFORE INFLATION CONTROL:
MAJORITY DOLLAR VALUE = 1
RICH DOLLAR VALUE = 4
AFTER INFLATION CONTROL:
MAJORITY DOLLAR VALUE = 4
RICH DOLLAR VALUE = 16
The ratio of wealth will be the same regardless of the inflation control. This means there exist a subtle deception in the system. There may be no difference mathematically. However, in reality it will hurt the majority because the unecessary control will create stress or exhaustion.
How does delflation or inflation control reduce the inequality??
Give me examples…..
@ckher777
Inflation most inflates the wealth of assets like stocks and commodities held by the wealthy. When inflation is reduced, the inequality of wealth is reduced. Just like the falling prices of the Great Depression reduced inequality.
@ckher777
The majority of stocks or assets are owned by the wealthy. These experience the most inflation or deflation. When deflation occurs, the disparity decreases. Prices are more affordable for wage-earners. Unearned income declines more sharply than earned income. Inflation control is most helpful in reducing inequality of wealth.
@ckher777
Chapter 14 on Assets and Demographics would make it easier to visualize the benefits of reducing inflation for reducing inequality of wealth.
How confused can you get?? Cheaper stocks will only give opportunity for more ownership only.
Inflation control does not solve the problem because the rich are not affected before or afterward. Understand? They got diversities and loop holes. The majority is not rich and will get affected though.
What is the source of inflation, the majority or the rich? Inflation control or deflation certainly will not affect the rich.
Therefore, deflation or inflation control is MEANINGLESS.
@ckher777
Inflation IS the problem. Inflation control IS the solution to the problem. Controlling inflation reduces inequality of wealth.
Cheaper stocks reduce the buying power of the wealthy holders, while offering more buying opportunities for new owners. Deflation increases the power of wage-earners relative to holders of passive investments. Inflation control is the MOST important element of any solution to distribution of wealth.
You got a LOGIC ISSUE such as “Inflation is the problem.” Ask yourself what is the problem or the source of inflation?
Does inflation control really change the wealthy rich before or afterward? My answer was NO because the rich got loopholes.
They got stocks, real estate, business, etc… They got diversified wealth. The rich are not affected as your imagination may think.
In reality, it will affect the majority who is trying to be rich. Because they will be stressed.
@ckher777
Yes, inflation is THE problem. Inflation absolutely affects the inequality of purchasing power. Your obsession with “loopholes” is worse than meaningless, it is misguided.
Stocks, real estate, cash-flow positive businesses are the BENEFICIARIES of inflation, while consumers are the VICTIMS of inflation.
Inflation is always and everywhere THE problem.
You are obviously stubborn. Inflation is caused by the rich and not by the majority.
Inflation control will not be much effective on the rich. Therefore, inflation control is POINTLESS. And learn to give up with unecessary argument with me.
@ckher777
Inflation control is THE MOST CRITICAL OF ALL monetary reforms. Anything other than inflation control is meaningless.
Inflation control sounds good. If looking good can really solve the inflation that the rich people are creating. Perhaps, I may see your point.
I wonder why there are so many sporadic haphazard inflation controls and economic problems??? Why not do it right and do it once only!
BECAUSE “inflation control” is NOT EFFECTIVE and MEANINGLESS!
Again, it is the rich people causing inflation AND not the majority.
SUMMARY:
1) Inflation control does not change the quantity of money people have.
2) It simply changes the value.
3) It is pointless because it has no beneficial effect: it actually creates stress for the majority.
4) Such control does not affect the rich people much. Even if it did, however, it would hurt the majority more. It is because of a trickling down domino effect.
e.g, the majority are dependent on the rich for jobs, loans, etc…
@ckher777
The problem is created by GOVERNMENT and central banks, NOT by “rich people”. Inflation control is absolutely critical. Everything besides inflation control is meaningless and ineffective. Inflation is not just a problem, inflation is THE problem.
It is GOVERNMENT causing the problem, NOT “rich people”. Blaming “rich people” is just hatred blinding you from using reason.
@ckher777
Limiting the volume of credit (money) is synonymous with controlling inflation. Limiting the fraudulent creation of fiat currency by central banks and governments is critical for retaining purchasing power. Controlling inflation incentivizes savings and discourages deficit spending. And savings (when inflation is low) is what enables people to become financially independent.
So to summarize, inflation is the most important of all policy changes. Everything else is meaningless.
Who do you think is in the government?
The rich or the poor?
Therefore, I wonder why so many loopholes exist? To whose benefit? Mostly the rich.
@ckher777
“Loopholes” exist because regulations are too burdensome and complicated. The solution is not to attack the “loopholes” but to abolish the regulations entirely. Simplify government so that it serves all, not just those with crafty legal counsel.
That will never happen. The government does not and will not serve all. It simply is impossible. You are either with the rich or the poor. Do you want poor asses backing you up or rich people backing you up?
There is no such thing as WIN WIN case.
With a winner, there must be a loser. Else it would be a tie. Stalemate is a NO NO. Why do you think the economy and the world is so fucked and so trapped?
There has to be a clear winner and a clear loser for progress to exist.
@ckher777
Your zero-sum game is a Marxist myth. Get your head out of the socialist gutter.
When free people engage in voluntary trade in a free market by mutual consent, both parties gain. The government is to blame for making anything a zero-sum game.
Limit government regulation, limit government-created inflation, cut taxes, and privatize government operations. This eliminates the socialist dilemma of a zero-sum game. All gain when government is reduced.
Who’s talking about Marxist myth? Does democracy really exist when there is inequality in wealth and education?
The rich and smart is like the wind.
The poor and average joe are like the grasses.
Democracy is a grassroot system.
Grasses will bend to the will of the wind.
Next time, learn to observe.
Capitalism is not as good as you think. If it was, everybody would be happy by now. It’s always the RICH and SMART taking advantage of the poor all over again.
@ckher777
Capitalism alone is good. The reason “everybody” is not happy is because we have TOO LITTLE capitalism, not too much.
You have a right to your opinion.
I wonder why WIN-WIN stalemate can not be the solution? Again, there is no progress. In the end, it is zero sum until the situation becomes WIN-LOSE or LOSE-WIN instead of WIN-WIN.
For 107 years one unit of labor, that is, energy converted to marketable goods increased 35%. Compared to 1776 how many more pairs of shoes or loaves of bread can one unit of labor create? How much usable energy can one unit of labor produce today compared to 1776?
Had it not been for the international banksters and their cartel colluding with government insiders that exponential increase in prosperity and abundance would have continued. Today we would and should be able to meet basic necessities with a few hours of labor per week. In effect, a much higher standard of living the world over for a fraction of what it cost today with both parents working ful time.
In 1800 it required the labor of a whole family to meet the basic necessities for the family. By 1910 it required the labor of one family member (typically the father) to meet the family’s basic necessities.