yk-
In a typical model an increase in money supply does devalue the currency which is what inflation is. But, in the face of collapsing system of production the tendency towards inflation is countered by deflation.
so in yks new model, printing new money now leads to deflation.....we got it. basically, you say whatever suits your argument, and once again you have no backing for these ridiculous statements. you post an article on hyperinflation, then you post an article on hyperdeflation, and now you claim they are happening simultaneously. whats next, black is white? lol.
But, as far as the dollar losing value, that is evident in some aspects in that it takes more and more dollars to buy the same relatively worthless stocks of profitless companies.
this statement proves once and for all that your knowledge of our financial system is just below zero. i should probably be ashamed for ever debating you on this topic, when its obvious you have no grasp of it whatsoever. increasing stock values are not equal to dropping dollar values......what an insane idea!! stock values are based on perception.....what people percieve the company to be worth. its a big auction, so stock in a company is only worth what the next guy is willing to pay for it (or what he
thinks its worth). sometimes this is a direct correlation to what the company is actually worth, and sometimes it isnt (its a fantasy value, like enron). when the sentiment drops, the market drops, plain and simple. when the sentiment rises, the market rises.......does this mean the dollar value just dropped with the increase in stock prices?? lol, of course not. if that were true, then during a major market rally (like the one we had in the 4th quarter), the price of goods would go through the roof!! somehow though, goods prices stayed constant through the entire process. how is that yk?
its very amusing to me that you cannot understand something so simple and basic, yet you try and explain the complexities of the system. the only person you are fooling with your jibberish, is yourself.
You are extremely confused, if not dishonest.
i am not confused or dishonest. you said that "many" believed that the system collapse was a "given". all i asked for was a list of sources that make up this "many" that you speak of (including more than contrarians and obvious lunatics like larouche). obviously, you could not provide such a list as evidenced by your answer. rather you attempted to draw the attention back on me by calling me dishonest. your deceit tactic have no bounds.
aa
