True or False? Inflation devalues wages.

You are lying. Not a single person in MMT says there aren't any consequences to printing up your own currency and accumulating debt. That is you simply being a dishonest fraudulent person.

 

My conclusion necessarily follows from my premises via simple transitive logic where if A=B and B=C, then A=C. More specifically, since "money" and "wages" are synonymous or interchangeable in this instance, and inflation devalues money, then by simple definition, inflation devalues wages. More formally:

Inflation = Devalued Money
Money = Wages
Inflation = Devalued Wages

Simple transitive logic, and you have already admitted that both of my premises are factual statements, so you have conceded the entire argument, though you probably do not realize it.

 

That money going to the restaurant is not only saddled with debt service and administrative fees
it's taking water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it in the shallow end...yes, it may create a few fleeting ripples, but the water level, of course, doesn't actually rise.

Every. single. aspect of your's and your fellow travelers' propaganda defy the immutable laws of economics, and are disingenuously advanced for the sole purpose of justifying command economy collectivism....or "economic fascism" ("planned capitalism/corporatism")

That you actually believe anyone with a modicum of intellect can't see through the bull(*)(*)(*)(*)
more than suggests it's you who are the crazy one.

 

I said there were no negative consequences, and that's backed up by your posting history. Print more + never worry about the debt = instant win!

 

No, because you are leaving out the one key ingredient that you so willingly forget. Inflation is a measurement over time. If I have a wage of $100k right now, inflation hasn't devalued it. If I have a wage of $100k next year and inflation was 2%... then my wage of $100k over the span of 2 years has been devalued compared to year 1.

Your conclusion assumes wages are constant which is the reason why your conclusion is false.

 

Wages have been flat for some time. Inflation has increased. Therefore, wages have been devalued.

 

Consequences can be negative or positive. Not a single person in MMT says that printing more money is "instant win" or there aren't any negative consequences to it. You are lying. We simply debunk common misconceptions about the monetary system, like us running out of money, going bankrupt, fractional reserve banking myth, Fed operation myths, etc. But not a single person says there isn't any negative consequences to printing too much money. The problem is your definition of "too much" is not based on any math or operational realities. It's simply your ideology and you "believe" it. Embarrassing!

- - - Updated - - -

You are still lying...

 

It makes no such assumption nor does it need to; my premises are factually correct (as you have already stipulated) and my conclusion necessarily follows from my premises via transitive logic where if A=B and B=C, then A=C.

 

Your premise needs to be changed...

Inflation = Devalued money over a certain period of time

So I retract my statement that your premises are factual because they aren't and they leave out the comparison factor.

 

So "inflation devalues money" is not a factual statement? Is that what you are saying?

 

Our debt based society requires that inflation continue. If everybody were making a decent profit, and people were making a decent living, the fat cats wouldn't be able to get fatter and fatter. Gotta keep that whip crackin' and the slaves moving.

 

If "government" or a consortium of philanthropists issued everyone one million dollars, would there be a negative effect on the purchasing power of a dollar?

 

Inflation doesn't devalue money. It is a measurement. People paying more for goods and services causes money to devalue when compared to a previous point in time. So inflation devalues money is not a factual statement.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess if you believe it, it must be true

 

"People paying more for goods and services" = inflation
"People paying more for goods and services" = what causes money to devalue, according to your explanation

Therefore,

inflation = what causes money to devalue.

Any other stupid games of semantics?

 

Let's try this out in the real world, shall we??? From 1978 to 1981 inflation was up 35.15%. Our wages increased at the rate of less than 8%. Please show me HOW this created wealth? And Akp, before you go trying to show how much more buying power we had in that time period we were making $6.03 in 1979 and had a Union contract of $.35 increase package over the following 3 years. Now, $.35 in what percentage of $6.03?

 

Akp, you will get all the chances you will want to prove your silly statements in the near future.

 

According to the Social Security, the average wage as up 30.4% from 1978 to 1981.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html#Series

 

The argument isn't about "the real world". It is about inflation. There are wages that do increase more than the rate of inflation and wages that don't. Just because over the past 30 years "average" wages haven't grown higher than inflation, doesn't make the statement "inflation devalues wages" correct. It devalues wages for individuals that have not increased their wage at a rate higher than inflation.

You can't say someone making $20,000 for the first time this year has had their wages devalued based off what someone could buy 30 years ago with $20,000. For this statement to be correct you have to make a lot of assumptions.

 

You are building a strawman. I'm not even arguing about what has happened in America. I'm arguing about the simple premise that the OP made. You are building a logical fallacy. Just because average wages in America haven't kept up with inflation recently, doesn't mean inflation devalues wages. Inflation can devalue wages and also can increase wages.

 

What is "some time"?

Year - Average wage
2001 32,921.92
2002 33,252.09
2003 34,064.95
2004 35,648.55
2005 36,952.94
2006 38,651.41
2007 40,405.48
2008 41,334.97
2009 40,711.61
2010 41,673.83
2011 42,979.61

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html#Series

 

Brew, inflation has increased 6.53 percent over the last 4 years. From 1978 to 1981 it increased 42.77 percent. With the fool spending that has went on for the past 4 years and continuing I'm afraid we will see something even worse than we saw back then.

 

do you think the fed should pursue a policy of zero inflation?

 

Think so, Akp??? I lived through it with 6 children. Try it sometime.

Inflation


1979 11.22%
1980 13.58%
1981 10.35%



1978
Bread .36 a loaf
gas .65 a gal.


1982
Bread .55 a loaf
gas .91 a gal.

 

True, assuming no increase in wages while rate of inflation continues to increase.

 

That happened 30+ years ago. Inflation has never been more consistent than it has since we learned the lessons of the late 1970s. In fact relatively both Reagan and Bush spent more than this "fool". This "fool" has relatively spent less than almost every President the past six decades. We have a bigger threat of deflation than high inflation, lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Showing high inflation rates for three years does not prove inflation devalues wages, lol.