Jack, you just described the scourge and the delusion of American Exceptionalism to a tee.

Whatever drugs Jack is on, I want it too.

The most explosive show start in a long time 😉

I just started listening to the show this morning and will finish after work. I also thought that others had heard the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper. It motivated me to go back and read some of Aesop’s other Fables and I found this free site I thought I would pass along, which I hope is OK. http://www.aesopfables.com/aesopsel.html
I remember hearing a lot of these growing up and there are a lot of good lessons that should be passed onto the next generation.

The velocity of money has nothing to do with inflation. For example, say Mr. A gives $10 dollars for 10 apples from Mr. B. Mr. B exchanges the $10 for 10 oranges from Mr. C. Mr. C exchanges the $10 dollars for 10 bananas. So in this example there are 3 exchanges of the same 10 dollars, and when the money is exchanged a good is exchanged. What if the same $10 dollars was exchanged 10, 50, or 100 times? Well then goods would be exchanged the same amount. For the velocity to increase the amount of produced goods for exchange, must increase. So if more goods are being purchased/exchanged with the same $10, how does this explain higher prices?

Another Problem: How many times can you spend your income? I can only spend my income once a year. How is more money circulated by more people, on average, if they don’t have more money, on average (monetary inflation)?

Finally, the concept of monetary velocity is simply a denial of supply and demand setting price; in this case for the price of money. How can you not take the changing supply of money into account by invoking monetary velocity?

The monetary velocity if Keynesian nonsense by which you should not be confused.

“Sorry dude you can’t just say Keynesian and make something go away.”

I have given 4 arguments not dependent on the claim that monetary velocity is Keynesians; although, I make this claim. I even discussed with specific concepts of the first 3 argument in my second post and provided another new argument in that second post. How are these arguments based upon the claim that monetary velocity is Keynesianism? The last argument in the second post is mathematical, and it’s high school math. This should have been an easy example to show a problem with, if it exists. All you have to do is show that I fouled up the equation by adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing by Keynes to try to trick people from seeing the real argument; I am sure this is in there somewhere.

“it isn’t you spending your money it is how many times that money is spent and spent again and again.”

I discussed this in the 1st paragraph of my 1st post. In my example multiple people spend/move the same $10 through this mini economy; then I abstract and say what if more people did the same. The more times a unit of money is exchanged the more goods per unit of money are exchanged. This repeat spending of money is adequately demonstrated in the example and the principle clearly stated in the paragraph, yet the objection is raised by you. My question remains: how are prices higher if people repeatedly spend the same money for many goods, or more goods than they did before?

“Another Problem: How many times can you spend your income? I can only spend my income once a year. ”
As my son would say, FAIL, it isn’t you spending your money it is how many times that money is spent and spent again and again.”

Yes, I am repeating a portion of quotes, but this section of you response was wrong on a couple of levels. The point of this, and I could have clearer, is that my production and spending determines how much money moves through my hands and back out, velocity is determined by people. I have to produce to receive money, unless it is printed and given to me, and then I pass on my money for others goods and services. The money doesn’t just move from hand to hand bidding up prices somehow, but is exchange from goods and services at every level when it moves. My income (production), can only be spent (consumed) in total once in cash transactions. The money stops until there is something else valued is created by me or someone else for which to exchange it. But again more velocity means more goods and services.

“Velocity isn’t just money moving it is also money expanding via lending. ”

Expanding via lending? Do you mean fractional reserve banking? So then, is velocity the same inflation, or a separate thing? Expanding the money supply is a term I would expect to be used in discussing inflation. I am not sure if the sentence is trying to create a new definition for velocity. If so this is an argumentation logic error. If not please clarify.

If the Fed prints a few trillion which it did, if it puts it into the banks which it did, if the banks sit on it and they are, if the corps that earn most of what passes through also sit on it, it does NOT flow, “velocity”, and inflation is low, which it is.
“What you are seeing right now is actually proof the Keynesian can’t just make inflation whenever they want, they want a LOT more inflation right now but people are not spending at past levels and more money isn’t be lent at past levels. Velocity isn’t just money moving it is also money expanding via lending. When money moves in a fractional system it expands, that is where the real inflation comes from. All the Fed can do is dump it in the top, where it goes from there is still largely controlled by the market. “

Why didn’t the people of Zimbabwe just stop the inflation by lowering the velocity? So is your analysis that their market really must have wanted hyperinflation? The Fed can move money into the market in other ways than through banks; maybe this is illegal according to their charter, but I don’t think this would matter to the Fed. Why aren’t they? Banks suffer during hyperinflation; their main asset, money, dies. The Fed does not want to wipe out its assets. The Keynesians at the Fed believe in a ‘correct’ level of inflation and will likely significantly overshoot it with their production of money. And which of the statistics are you referring to when you say inflation is not high?