[WalterBright]

The purpose of the Fed was not to regulate banks, but to create a fiat money system instead of a gold reserve system. The purpose of a fiat money system is to enable the government to print money and spend it with wild abandon, resulting in endemic inflation, and has happened to every single fiat money system.

The Fed and the government will never admit this, however, which is why they blame inflation on:

1. speculators

2. profiteers

3. wage-price spiral

4. cost push

5. demand pull

6. Putin

7. Arab cartels

8. oil companies

and about anything else they can think of. Anything but the real reason.

[WalterBright]

One of the more astonishing pieces of propaganda coming from the Fed is the idea that 2% inflation is some sort of "good for the economy" thing. Astonishing in that people buy it hook, line and sinker.

What it is is a 2% annual tax on the economy. Even worse, your illusory inflation "gains" on assets then get taxed, too.

The only thing it is good for is the politicians.

[Straw]

Although I agree wholeheartedly with the economic logic, I have a couple of minor counterpoints:

1. Constant 2% inflation at least doesn't have the negative effects of unpredictable inflation, its just a 2% tax.

2. Certain prices appear to be slightly sticky in that they don't go down, for example, wages are almost never cut in nominal terms, for psychological/cultural reasons- people tend to quit if their wages get cut. Slight inflation allows these to slowly decrease without running into the asymmetric price stickiness behavior.

What do you think?

[WalterBright]

I'm actually ok with a 2% inflation rate as a means of funding the government. I just wish the Fed and the government would be honest about it. I don't like losing all respect for the officials pushing the propaganda.

[WalterBright]

"As we have repeatedly emphasized, maintenance of the gold Standard means that the stock of money must be whatever is necessary to balance international payments. On the other hand, the real bills criterion sets no effective limit to the quantity of money."

-- Monetary History of the United States, pg 191, Friedman

Endemic inflation set in the next year.

[bumby]

Didn't Friedman also acknowledge that more recent monetary influences (1980 onward) deviate from the data he used to draw his conclusions in Monetary History of the United States? In other words, the statistics he used wouldn't necessarily draw the same conclusions today?

In that context, his statement is fine as a historical study but may not be suitable to model current economics.

[anonymouskimmer]

> The purpose of

GP comment was writing about "the result" of, not "the purpose of".