Bitcoin inflation now is 44% per year

[cunicula]

Okay, are there universities teaching Austrian economics nowadays?

The OP's definition is consistent with the Austrian view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_inflation

[1713555239]

1713555239

[1713555239]

1713555239

[1713555239]

1713555239

[evoorhees]

If you are aware of contemporary textbooks which define "inflation" in terms of the money supply, I'm interested, please list/quote them in this thread.

Please don't tell me about how the word was used by Ron Paul or in 1920, however. Not interested.

Murray Rothbard - Man, Economy, and State, 1971.
http://mises.org/store/product.aspx?ProductID=177

If you prefer to believe Keynesian "economists," such as Mankiw and Krugman, you're welcome to do so. However, if you wish to be correct in your thoughts, I'd encourage you to read beyond what is offered in the US public education system... a system which has been declining in it's effectiveness for decades, despite absurd levels of money spent on "improving" it. I've read Krugman's textbook... have you read Rothbard's?

[da2ce7]

If you are aware of contemporary textbooks which define "inflation" in terms of the money supply, I'm interested, please list/quote them in this thread.

Correct the standard 'inflation' is regarding price... However the OP was clearly talking about the growth of the monetary supply, (that is in 'inflation' in the generic sense).

It is useful to clarify what sort of 'inflation' we are talking about otherwise the OP post would be clearly incorrect by common definitions.  Since the OP was clearly talking about the monetary supply we should at least talk about it by it's correct label.... (no-matter how rarely it is used in common literature).

[evoorhees]

Okay, are there universities teaching Austrian economics nowadays?

Yes. George Mason University, Clemson, Florida State, NYU, Suffolk, West Virginia U, San Jose State, Loyola University, and certainly others.

Of course, truth is not up for democratic vote... I don't much care how many schools teach Theory A vs. Theory B. All I care about is which theory is correct. My own judgement, for whatever it's worth, tells me that a theory which suggests digging holes in the ground and filling them back up as an "economic stimulus" is probably missing something.

[cunicula]

If you are aware of contemporary textbooks which define "inflation" in terms of the money supply, I'm interested, please list/quote them in this thread.

Please don't tell me about how the word was used by Ron Paul or in 1920, however. Not interested.

Murray Rothbard - Man, Economy, and State, 1971.
http://mises.org/store/product.aspx?ProductID=177

If you prefer to believe Keynesian "economists," such as Mankiw and Krugman, you're welcome to do so. However, if you wish to be correct in your thoughts, I'd encourage you to read beyond what is offered in the US public education system... a system which has been declining in it's effectiveness for decades, despite absurd levels of money spent on "improving" it. I've read Krugman's textbook... have you read Rothbard's?

1971, huh. Has someone assigned this for an undergraduate course somewhere?

[Jaime Frontero]

stop argueing about the definition of inflation.
a hundred years of economic theory hasnt settled on one definition. you wont either. it's obvious what kind OP meant.

How can one have a rational discussion with out defining what they are talking about?

congratulations.

you have just encapsulated 300 years of economic debate into one, easy to grasp sentence.

me - i'm from the why-don't-we-wait-and-see-what-happens school...

[cunicula]

The main division in macroeconomics today is between Keynesian "saltwater schools" and Rational Expectations "freshwater schools". While the two schools disagree on substantive issues, they share definitions of common terms, like inflation. Sure there are crackpots who lie outside of these two schools (e.g. Marxists, Austrian Economists, etc.), but definitions written down by these guys don't influence common usage.

Now that this thread has made these distinctions clear, I will take my posts elsewhere. 

[relative]

stop argueing about the definition of inflation.
a hundred years of economic theory hasnt settled on one definition. you wont either. it's obvious what kind OP meant.

How can one have a rational discussion with out defining what they are talking about?

congratulations.

you have just encapsulated 300 years of economic debate into one, easy to grasp sentence.

I guess you two missed an important part of what I wrote. I bolded it for you.

[vrotaru]

OK, I'll bite. So "you" (long/short list of mainstream economic trolls[1]) stand by the textbook definition of inflation? Let's have a closer look at it.

It is just weighted sum of prices. That's it, period. It could have been other weights/prices? Absolutely. Are those weights continually adjusted and tweaked? Absolutely. But it is those arbitrary and tweaked weighted sums which make economics into a science, almost like physics. Oh, really?

Look, I have no emotional attachment to the classical definition inflation, but the modern one is bordering on the absurd. Or over. If tomorrow(next year, decade) technologies will evolve  in such a way that prices of basic necessities (those whose weight is not zero) will halve, the money supply will have to be doubled in order to avoid harmful deflation?

Or if the greens will take over and all efficient technologies will be banned as un-green, and the price of those commodities whose weight is not zero will double the central bank will have to halve the money supply in order to avoid inflation?? Is that absurd enough or not yet?

Ugh, now I feel better.

[1] A troll in my definition is one with no interest in understanding the subject.

[TonyHoyle]

Look, I have no emotional attachment to the classical definition inflation, but the modern one is bordering on the absurd. Or over. If tomorrow(next year, decade) technologies will evolve  in such a way that prices of basic necessities (those whose weight is not zero) will halve, the money supply will have to be doubled in order to avoid harmful deflation?

You already know that's exactly what they'll do..

[hugolp]

The main division in macroeconomics today is between Keynesian "saltwater schools" and Rational Expectations "freshwater schools". While the two schools disagree on substantive issues, they share definitions of common terms, like inflation. Sure there are crackpots who lie outside of these two schools (e.g. Marxists, Austrian Economists, etc.), but definitions written down by these guys don't influence common usage.

Now that this thread has made these distinctions clear, I will take my posts elsewhere.  

The way to create a community is not to insult people.

Also, I dont know how you can call crackpots to the people that predicted the housing bubble, while a majority of keynesians did not see it coming, including Krugman. Krugman specifically called for the creation of the housing bubble. So if someone has to be called a crackpot here are the keynesians.

The real problem with keynesianism is that its not scientific, but that is another discussion.

[vrotaru]

Look, I have no emotional attachment to the classical definition inflation, but the modern one is bordering on the absurd. Or over. If tomorrow(next year, decade) technologies will evolve  in such a way that prices of basic necessities (those whose weight is not zero) will halve, the money supply will have to be doubled in order to avoid harmful deflation?

You already know that's exactly what they'll do..

Yes, that's so. Of course, bitcoins may catch on... (crosses fingers, or whatever...)