I cranked out the first three briefs in one day. This is a record for me and perhaps provides an indication—at least to myself—that I have achieved clarity on this subject. However, I expect this fourth brief will require a few days of work.
I made the YouTube video about inflation in late July 22. A few days afterward, I was contacted by an economist who attempted to methodically show me how my definition of inflation was “not useful” and did not agree with the conventional framework. I already knew that my definition did not agree with the traditional framework. Moreover, why would Pugsley have made such a great effort to explain his insights 40 years ago using his barter-only demonstration if he did not then appreciate that the conventional explanations were faulty.
[The economist who contacted me and criticized my work had commented on the Milton Friedman YouTube video wherein Friedman asserts that inflation created is by only the government. Did he not hear or agree with Friedman, as his comments therein suggested otherwise?]
I temporarily withdrew my video pending my ability to address the criticisms. I had made comments to my video post that contained further elaborations to its content, but I had also convinced myself that I did not have anything further to say. In the video, I had mentioned that there would be subtleties to my information that I could not speak to and left it at that.
Thereafter, I ruminated on two pieces of information: The Milton Friedman statements about the nature of inflation AND the principles of the Barter-only economy. In so doing I was able to solidify, not only my stance on the subject, but to see many other relationships between empty money creation and the Consumer Price Index (CPI). I then included these in the newer articles. And, as always happens with me, writing generated more insights regarding my framework.
Thus, I completely dismissed my critic’s assertions.
[I call this “my framework” as I hesitate to assume what Pugsley or Friedman or others similarly minded would say about it.]
Intra-Academia Politics
As already mentioned, I am not well read in economics. And this is good. I am fortunate to not have been inculcated (poisoned) with academia’s framework in this regard. And I have first-hand experience with the politics within academia and know all about the back stabbing and intrigue and the fraudulent research that goes on therein. The politics in academia are truly nasty.
And with my mentioning of “academia’s framework,” I assume that there are many various competing philosophies on the subject between economists.
Defining, Outlining, Categorizing, Sorting, etc.
Another angle on this is our necessity to organize our thoughts. We have a real need to fit knowledge into definitions, departments, and outlines. This is required for sorting, storing, and sharing knowledge, but it can lead to oversimplification.
For instance, Robert Ardrey told the story about a woman who killed the patrons of her bed-and-breakfast business, and then dismembered them to fit into pre-made boxes. If a body part did not fit in a box, she chopped it down to fit.
With this gruesome analogy, Ardrey explained that we do this with the organization of our concepts. If an idea doesn’t fit into a category, we often either discard it or chop it down to size and its trimmings are left as figurative floor sweepings.
Government Granting and Sway
On another level, I am aware of the heavy government influence on the climatologists. Researchers are desperate for government money which is sometimes* conditionally granted. These conditions may include the requirement to produce a desired narrative. [Retired CIA analyst, Larry Johnson tells the same story about the intelligence services.] This is documented in depth by Patrick Michaels. And I suspect a similar conspiracy with the economists.
[*Note that sometimes is often assumed to mean a small amount of the time when, literally, any amount, including all, qualifies as some.]
Regardless of my suspicions, I have lingering questions surrounding the definition of inflation, the misapplication of the CPI, and the blind conformity of the press (both mainstream and alternative) to perpetuate misinformation on the subject.
For instance, is there some professional secret among the economists to keep these simple principles a mystery?
Is there a clandestine purpose behind the governments’ (all governments) to hide the present major economic force of a CPI: the government-caused scarcities, cloaked as “inflation?”
I prefer to believe that this is all merely rank stupidity, but it sometimes seems contrived—too organized within a framework to be folly.
My Personal Interest in this Subject
I’m enthralled with this subject for reasons I don’t completely understand. I admit that it’s not on my regular dog track, so to speak. When in college, I steered well away from such topics that I then considered lifeless, mundane, and unexciting.
I suppose that much of my attraction to this topic was that it was a mysterious threat to me. While others around me seemed mildly concerned about inflation during the 1970s, I greatly feared it. As a young adult, my world seemed destabilized and insecure. I strove to understand it in order to gain a sense of security and peace of mind.
And then Pugsley emerged to make sense of the horrendous and non-manipulative as regards the topic.
Since Pugsley’s emergence (as well as Friedman’s and others’), many have at least come round to acknowledge that inflation is caused by governmental deficit spending. So, the gigue is up in this specific regard, but the deceit might remain useful to disguise the economic turmoil the government deliberately causes with its constraint of trade via its other agencies and departments (Energy, Immigration, Interior, Health, Environmental Protection, Labor, etc.). How would I ever know?
Ingrained Parlance
When the CPI is notably high, it is ingrained within the parlance to call this “inflation.”
For example, this past weekend (10-1-22), I read that the “inflation rate” in the Netherlands had reached 17%. And I strongly doubt that this is correct. My readers realize that almost all of this so-called “inflation” is due—in this particular case—to the scarcities related to the lack of energy further due to the climate fanatics’ political sway. And it seems much easier to cloak the easily reversible (not so easily reversed for Europe now that the Nord Stream pipelines have been ruptured) scarcities under the inflation label. So how would we accurately state the condition?
Assuming the CPI is not comprised of cherry-picked commodities, the phrase, “The Netherlands’ CPI reached 17% last week,” is fine. Leave it at that. Leave inflation out of the discussion—unless the discussion is to delve into the individual economic forces acting upon the commodities within the CPI.
Instead of saying, “Turkey has onerous inflation,” we perhaps should say “Turkey has an onerous consumer price index value.”
Other Sources or Kinds of Inflation
As I have belabored, there are no other kinds of inflation.
Some protest, “Well, what about the hanky-panky ongoing between the banks?” OR “What about the Fed’s bailout of such and such bank?” Answer: It’s still a version of the government printing empty money.
There are many more nuances of inflation that only someone like Pugsley can articulate. I’ve probably reached the limit of my insights, but I’ve stated this before.
News Flash: The United Nations on Curbing Inflation
Today (10-4-22), the UN decreed that all central banks were to abandon efforts to curb inflation via raising interest rates in favor of price controls.
Of course, neither of these measures ameliorates inflation. They only destroy businesses and wreck havoc throughout the economy. And note that this witchcraft economics is the work of eminent economists within the various governments.
Importance
Whether my assertions about inflation are correct or not, it is crucially important—as with seeking the solution to any problem—to achieve a working language of the subject. The first step to this is to ensure that the definition(s) are consistent with reality. The second step is to construct a framework in which the parts of the framework are consistent between themselves. I believe that I have done this.
“ Regardless of my suspicions, I have lingering questions surrounding the definition of inflation, the misapplication of the CPI, and the blind conformity of the press (both mainstream and alternative) to perpetuate misinformation on the subject.
For instance, is there some professional secret among the economists to keep these simple principles a mystery?”
Totally agree. True with this topic, as well as many others.