Hans centrale pointe er: Produktionen i en markedsøkonomi stiger år for år (hvis vi ser bort fra katastrofer mv.). Hvis pengemængden (og omløbshastigheden ikke steg), ville vi derfor se faldende priser i en markedsøkonomi uden stigende pengemængde.
Her fra Bryan Caplans indlæg, The Fakery of “Fighting Inflation”:
Free markets are fundamentally deflationary. In the absence of monetary intervention, Aggregate Demand stays roughly stable*, while Aggregate Supply is growing. Per every textbook, stable demand and rising supply implies falling prices.
While then is inflation almost always positive in almost every country? Because central banks keep increasing the money supply. If they did nothing, deflation would be the norm.
It is therefore quite absurd to give the Fed or any other central bank credit for “fighting inflation.” You might as well give your hard-partying neighbor credit for “fighting loud noise” because he turned his stereo volume down from 10 to 7. Key point: If the neighbor wasn’t home to “fight loud noise,” the volume would be 0. The most you can honestly say about any central bank is that they are trying to start causing a lot less inflation. Which sounds underwhelming. Which is why they twist the truth.
Netop! Altså: åbn for olien og gassen fra Nordsøen, fjern afgifterne på energi, så kan markedsmekanismerne ordne resten – og pengegriske politikere, energioligarker og storindudtripaver får en laaang næse og vi igen et dammenhængende sanfund!
Set i lyset af dit bidrag i dag, Jonas, og Christians i forgårs, så burde dette være noget alle læste og fik kundskab(er) om, desværre giver de fleste vælgere sig til takke med de tre statsministre kandidaters, noget må gøres, i debat semantik, når det kommer til inflationens fænomen. Kan dog godt “forstå” dem, tvivler dog på de ved det, det faglige indhold som en virkelighedens tour de force er en “bombe” for deres udenomssnak og søforklaringer på de reelle årsager og virkninger, herunder Irvin Fishers kvantitetsligning, MV = PY…!!
Om Money Mechanics, fra kapitel 9:
https://mises.org/library/understanding-money-mechanics-3/html/c/845
What’s Wrong with MV = PQ?
Economists in the Austrian tradition have criticized the equation of exchange.13 In the first place, it seeks to explain economic phenomena in a mechanistic fashion, the way an engineer might write out an equation describing the flow of water through a pipe.
In contrast, the Austrians typically follow the approach of Mises by using the subjective preferences of an individual to explain his or her demand to hold a cash balance of a certain size. At any moment, there is no such thing as “money in circulation,” as the equation of exchange leads us to believe. Rather, every unit of money is always held in an individual or organization’s cash balance, and the Austrians typically use this perspective when tackling problems of monetary and price inflation. This “micro” method can then be scaled up to arrive at the market demand to hold money, which interacts with the total supply in order to explain the purchasing power of money. In this respect, the Austrian approach to explaining the “price” of money is the same subjective value theory used to explain the price of apples.