This is Jason. I am a professional blogger and loves to write on various financial topics. I’m writing to you because I want to take my author identity to the next level by supplying informative articles to personal finance bloggers. I don’t believe in writing promotional articles, instead I feel informative stuff are something users are most interested in reading.

I would hereby like to request an opportunity to write a guest post on your site, ofcourse free of charge. You can send me your preferred topic, if any, and I would be happy to write an article on it. I can show you some of my past work that have attracted good number of visitors.

I must say, you are doing a great job on with your blog .

I would be happy if you could answer either way!

Sincerely,
Jason Holmes

Creating more currency to pass around only happens when the monopoly currency producer produces it. It is not a natural phenomenon, but is instead a calculated one. Which form of consideration goes into the decision to print/loan more currency, whether it be cost push or demand pull, is not a theoretical question. There is no theory of the decision makers. They decide because they can, and they act because they can. There is no theory of central bank decision-making policy!!!

So to say that the theories of cost push and demand pull have never been proven is absurd. No theory is possible that does not include the whim and fancy of the controllers of the currency. To think that they are mysterious benevolent masters who must be acting in logical and natural ways that can be explained by theory and scientific study is ludicrous.

To argue about where new money comes from when there is only one central bank is an exercise in intentional stupidity. It comes from one place and one place only or it is legally counterfeit.

And to assume that the new money creates wealth at the time of its issue is to ignore the wealth that was created to trade for it. No bank or government anywhere at any time ever created anything except obstruction and worthless money. Everything else was produced by the people. The economy was either most people suffering more or less the losses created by the bank and the government.

This was a big problem in England at one time. Adding a serrated edge to coins was invented by physicist/mathematician par excellence, turned mint employee Isaac Newton in the late 17th century to make it make it more obvious that a coin had been tampered with. It’s funny that post 1964 US coins still have this serrated edge even though they are made of relatively cheap metal alloys. This is clearly a sop to tradition much like the retention of a British monarch – very expensive entertainment paid for by the long suffering Brits. We don’t hear much about coin clipping in the 21st century. The invention of the printing press and organized political force made inflation easier and more difficult to directly detect, i.e. inflation through counterfeit and the fraud of “public debt”.

Maybe I’m overlooking something, but isn’t inflation/deflation a change in the ratio of goods and services produced and available in the market to the total quantity of money units extant? If so, then to maintain this ratio and stabilize the value of money, the creation of money should occur upon production and then be cancelled by consumption (purchase) where the difference is simply producer profit along with a happy or satisfied customer.

Clearly money has no function or meaning without production of goods and services. Of what good is money if there is nothing to purchase? And of course, what’s the point of producing something if no one wants it? These questions are unequivocally answered in the marketplace by voluntary purchase and the earning of profit as the economic measure of success and continuation. In fact the definition of “capital” itself is that which is produced but not consumed and used for further production. Also, as far as I know, it is impossible to consume that which has not been produced. Well maybe for a while in a fool’s paradise.

Money was a technology invented to facilitate market exchange. But like any technology it can later be perverted by criminals for nefarious purposes in an attempt to obtain something for nothing. One important characteristic of money is that it has integrity and keeps it’s value over time. Clearly federal reserve fiat money lacks this characteristic. Then again some economists think inflation is a good thing. Go figure.

In recent times “inflation” has been redefined as simply a general increase in prices. This new definition is misleading and overlooks normal supply and demand forces that also influence prices. I suppose pulling off this sort of fraud would be quite beneficial to a counterfeiter. Keynes would be proud.

The significant result of “monetary inflation” (I still think this is redundant) is the loss of purchasing power. The injustice is that the producers of goods and services get blamed for it by the masses of ignorant consumers. Greed? Too much profit? Of course the politicians who must cater to the masses to get elected, come to the rescue and offer up another something-for-nothing non-solution to the symptomatic problem they created: more forceful regulation of prices, wages, interest rates, counterfeit “debt” stimulus, etc. Does anyone see a general and degenerative cyclic pattern?

It think Frederic Bastiat (who has clearly influenced Henry Hazlett’s thinking and ideas) very eloquently expressed the nature of the problem in the middle of the 19th century:

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.”

Here’s my conclusion: The state is an opportunistic social disease masquerading as a cure.

It is NOT about taxing the rich to give to the poor, but rather about taking taxes back to give to all the citizens who were being impoverished by the Government!