Inflation is caused by the government

You demand that I prove or disprove your assertions?

 

He claims to be libertarian, and, yet, he prefers monetary central planning.

 

You're correct, the value of money remained quite stable up until the creation of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Prior to that time inflation occurred primarily as a result of war affecting most everyone or locally and was followed by offsetting periods of deflation. Essentially, the money supply changed very little and prices rose as a result of increased demand and returned to a nominal level as a result of diminishing demand.
When the supply of money is a finite amount it cannot be amassed by a single individual or even several individuals for long as their supply would have great effect on the costs of their needs and wants, forcing others to barter with one another for their needs and wants until money was brought back into circulation.
Since 1913, and the creation of a fiat currency initially partially backed by something of 'real' value, we have had periods of inflation primarily as a result of the interest growth of fiat money exceeding the amount of currency in circulation requiring the elimination of any backing of the currency by banks requiring more currency to be introduced devaluing the currency and eliminating offsetting deflation which in terms of dollars results in a constantly increasing cost of living on everyone. As such no one, or several, individuals can amass all the currency, but can amass a great quantity of the total as government steps in to provide aid to those who can not afford the rising cost of living.

 

Monetary inflation is caused by the Fed and has nothing to do with retail price inflation unless it effects retail consumption. Consumer credit directly effects retail consumption and therefore contributes to inflation.

In free markets (without manufacturing and publishing monopolies), price inflation reflects a disparity between the supply and demand of a particular good or service and signals directly competing small producers to increase supply of that good or service, which they usually do quickly in order to take advantage of the higher price before competition forces the price back down.

In captive markets (dominated by manufacturing and publishing monopolies), price inflation is a regularly scheduled event that is permitted by a persistent disparity between supply and demand that the market is unable to correct quickly due to large monopolies being slow to respond while being protected from direct competition with high, often insurmountable, legal and financial barriers against small producers.

This is all by design. The right-wing supports the captive market with looser regulations and lower taxes on monopolies while the left-wing supports the captive market with tighter regulations and higher taxes on monopolies. None of the oligopoly support the free market because they don't want people employing themselves and paying their own taxes. By securing exclusive rights over the means of production for established monopolies, the oligopoly is keep most of us employed instead of self-employed to keep us preoccupied and to ensure that our income taxes are collected regardless of our approval.

 

I said nothing about mine, but rather conservative/libertarian assertions. It is the central issue of human history. Isn't learning fun?

 

did you think that when the Fed prints money they make it illegal to spend that money on retail consumption??
Or, do they print a special kind of money that is not accepted as money in retail stores??

 

how can there be monopolies when there are now millions of corporations all around the world competing with each other. Did you know monopoly means one, not millions?? Notice that when a liberal and conservative meet the conservative must always run a sort of kindergarten?

 

would the liberal dare to present his best example of a captive market and large monopoly????

 

just like Milton Friedman.

 

How many lines of credit do you have with the Fed?

America and every publicly traded company in it.

Every patent and copyright is a monopoly.

I usually end up schooling everyone.

 

So you would do away with patents ?

 

Patents have two components- the documentation of an idea and the ownership of that idea. I would get rid of the ownership component as one of the greatest injustices of all time. Artists and inventors certainly deserve recognition but nobody deserves a monopoly.

The free market only requires the legal protection of real property. Real property is the ownership of physically tangle stuff and real property rights are naturally limited to the physical nature of real property. When somebody else owns the ideas in your mind, they own you.

 

if true why are you so afraid to tell us why??