Fiat money itself enables misconduct.
Economists tend to see their postulates as applicable across the board of all countries. All countries behave according to these immutable globalizing laws.
It is useful to find examples of behavior inconsistent with these postulates, 'globalizers' who nevertheless do not share rare earths, or (perhaps even now or in the near future) gold or silver, if they can help it.
Maybe that is the greatest good for the greatest number of Chinese, a new economic mercantilist theme.
Perhaps this is another economics counterexample:
James Grant, an astute economic thinker, publisher, and pundit, who used to show up on Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street Week, was apparently surprised, according to his comments in a recent video, when his group tried to 'value invest' in Japan, some years ago.
The Japanese have supposedly been working on products or materials for which there can be no 'competition'. That is an impossibility almost for the economists; the closest analogy may be the 'natural monopoly' I guess.
Theme music for this new item, 'Can't Touch This'.
Printing money gives inflation to the extent this fictive captal does not generate new real production by demand pull. If the realization surpasses the initial impulse, it may even be deflationary.
ReplyDeleteThe Austrian school of Economics simply ignores this realization by demand pull, which simply must have some effect under all conceivable circumstances. That's a basic fallacy.
Of course fiat money enables some kind of misconduct. Any policy does likewise.