The Replacements Hntai

The other day, this post , would tell our friends about one of the questions which had led me to study Economics.

I always stuck with something we said Professor Carlos Leyba " economists must take critical thinking to society" . (I recommend you take the time to read the note linkie why, although a while back, not rubbish).

I interpreted his statement as follows: " economists should not marry anyone and must examine everything, including their own ideas and constructive criticism to offer society" . At one point, is similar to the " methodical doubt" of Descartes, but without believing in God to stop doubting one thing: there are things just not sure, as no doubt do the rest too.

The question on which I counted the other day, was Why not end poverty and economic problems of those issuing more money?

This post may seem too silly to the eyes of economists. However, in our country appears to have arrived at a consensus as regards uncontrolled monetary emission and its consequences, so the question takes on a sense. That sense is, of course, limited. None of the people who believe that further stimulate aggregate demand through issuance will not cause a hyperinflationary spiral can sustain this if we talk about eg. a growth rate of printing money "infinite" (though this is an exaggeration, surely there is a level of emission growth from which it deemed controversial enough.)

A "nice" explanation of why it is not possible to give unreservedly which fetches an inflationary process that finished eating and / or getting worse all the "benefits" of this policy is to think what would happen if there were only right to sell and is liable for (at least) two people. If we increase the stock of money and give it equally to both consumers will be willing to pay more to be done with that one either (think of what a PC would. At an auction of the masterpiece that interests them, assuming no have nothing else to spend, because all basic needs are already covered for all).

In this way, would explain that the price of the rise, causing inflation (assuming that the object in question is a consumption basket of an average family would arrive at this conclusion.)

is true that a world so unreal and caricatured difficult to extrapolate to real life in the world in which we live. He was about to go looking for arguments, but suddenly I found myself reading this passage from DH Robertson I want to share.

"As things are, the ease with which advances can be made in any kind of money lubricates the wheels of material progress; but the result is that people tend to confuse the coins, which are simple certificates of a right to obtain goods that may not even exist, with the goods themselves, and overwhelmed by hardships and disappointments of every kind. Adam Smith once compared money to a road which passes the market all the produce from the region, but that in itself does not produce one iota of anything. No one would dream of eating one way, and yet, man constantly surprised to discover that money can not be eaten, as they say that the Turks are surprised every year winter comes

.*

In a way, it seems to have much to add. But as noted above, in the case of the science of disappointment, is welcome criticism and dissent.

"Nobody made him want to eat a rock with potatoes?

Greetings,

MI



* DH Robertson, Money, 3rd Ed, FCE, 1955, pg. 15

Photo

here