Inflation Vs Deflation: “Can We Meet Somewhere In The Middle?”
If inflation is suppose to bad and deflation is suppose be bad, then what’s good? Are you beginning to see the hypocrisy of today’s inept economic policies? It appears the government “wants to have its cake and eat it too”—aka, “meet me somewhere in the middle” have morphed itself into a macroeconomic pipe dream. Fact is, inflation is always going to be a part of any market driven economy and deflations is always going to be its natural antithesis; therefore, they both end up being erratic monetary phenomena brought on by “big gov’s” egregious monetary policies. What kind of economic price nirvana is the Fed searching for? When was it ever written that prices should be neither too high nor too low? Another Fed fallacy to hoodwink the credulous American! But to the economic cynics out there, what the Fed was trying to do was divert attention away from its real objective and that was to maintain a complete and hermetic grip on our money supply. What the Fed should do is say, “we're sorry, we screwed up and let’s move on.” But the Fed will never issue a formal mea culpa to the American people—its economic sophomoric behavior over the decades breeds contempt.
Lambasting the Federal Reserve system isn’t the intended goal of this hub, what this hub serves as is a constant reminder about the potential backlashes of an economy inflicted with central bank planning wishful thinkers: the very idea that they can “out-think” the natural flow of the free market enterprise system is a precursor to economic treason. The disloyalty on the part of this secret central banker’s pact—especially in its regards to a massive intervention in setting interests rates—edicts a spiritual call from the capitalistic Gods to take some action. In this same vain, this hub serves as an official proclamation to the American people to take heed about a potential dark side of macroeconomics. This hub strives to get the American people to take the necessary steps to jettison this idea of fighting both inflation and deflation by toying around with the rate of interest.
Let it be known that it was “bad monetary policies” that got us into this mess and it’ll be “good monetary policies” that get us out...“good monetary policies?” Yes, it’s possible to have “good monetary policies” if the money that its affecting is good—to be exact, if the Fed were to back our money with some kind of commodity, both inflation and deflation—as a monetary phenomena—would become something for our kid’s kid to talk about. Fact is monetary policies were based around a 19th century gold standard. Now the only standards monetary policies are based around are double standards: the insincerities of the Fed, since its inception in 1913 are too great to mention, but let it be clear on December 23, 2013, the date that will mark the Feds centennial celebration, thus serving as a hundred year reminder of what it meant for a free market based capitalistic economic system to be despotically ruled by an economic coup d’etat.
Just like the Great Depression of the 1930s spawned a renaissance of economic thought and a brief but acrimonious stagflation period of the 1970s perpetuate a slightly different version of those ideals—so too, will a new and progressive economic concept be needed to combat the future state of our current macroeconomic dilemma. Because of our recent engine breakdown, macroeconomics has suffered a major blow. Again the problem hasn’t been macroeconomics, per se, but more a long the lines of “bad macroeconomic policies.” Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman said macroeconomics was “spectacularly useless at best, and positively harmful at worst.” What he was referring too was these same “bad macroeconomic policies” past down from the hands of the people “up top,” pulling levers, affecting the people “down bottom.” Further, macroeconomics, as a subset of the science of economics, appears to be just fine. What got us into this problem was a deviation from rational macroeconomic conventional wisdom. Whenever government uses too much force within the free market enterprise system—i.e., massive interventions at setting rates of interest—it tends to coerce the purity of the capitalistic system. In other words, its actions can bring about the advent of grave economic engine consequences: engine misfires, engine breakdowns and maybe even a complete engine stall.
More by this Author
Think you have what it takes to get into and get out of one of this very competitive schools, read on?
Money in its inception served primarily four functions; they were as follows: 1. Medium of exchange. Money is used as a kind of in-between (middle ground) to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. In essence,...
Think you have what it takes to get into a one of world's top schools...read on?
No comments yet.