How to Communicate the Ideas of Inflation to the Mainstream

We've probably all seen a free market economist on a mainstream financial news show at some point addressing the issue of inflation.  If you haven't, then you may wish to check out some videos of Peter Schiff or Ron Paul.  Many times it seems like arguments arise whenever inflation is mentioned.  The typical argument may run something like this:

Free Market Guy:  "There is massive inflation in the market thanks to the Central Bank."
Mainstreamer:  "There doesn't appear to be any inflation as the CPI has remained steady at 3%."

I propose that at this point the argument is really over definitions and semantics rather than anything of substance.  I'll go further to propose a clean and easy way to settle the dispute in a fruitful and educational manner which will allow the opportunity for the real ideas about inflation to be communicated clearly.

When somebody takes the argument that inflation doesn't exist, we should qualify the word.  So instead of saying there was massive inflation, we can say there was massive monetary inflation.  Monetary inflation inevitably leads to higher prices.  It should be easy to get agreement that when the Central Bank increases the money supply, it can be defined as monetary inflation.  We can go still further to explain that even if prices remain stable the effects of monetary inflation are detrimental.  In a market where prices would normally decline, if prices remain stable we lose the benefits of falling prices which help the poor and the economy.

The CPI is a narrowly defined set of prices which do not indicate the real effects of monetary inflation.  The numbers that comprise the CPI also change over time which makes its use as an indicator less effective.  Monetary inflation does in fact affect food prices.  Food prices are essential to many people.  A rise in food prices is a burden upon the most down trodden in society and especially those on a fixed income.

It is also important to note that the price inflation may be separated from monetary inflation by a factor of several months or several years.  This also causes a lot of confusion, because many people may look at prices directly following a monetary base increase and thus conclude, "Aha!  Monetary inflation doesn't cause prices to rise."  The housing bubble is a good example of the time difference.  It was the monetary inflation of the early 2000's that ultimately manifested as higher prices several years later.  We cannot predict the exact timing or the magnitude of the price increase, but there is no question as to effects which must be caused by monetary inflation.

I believe this definitional work is essential not only in explaining the idea to the newscaster, but also to the viewers who are often not versed in free market economics.  You can check out a brief video I made on the subject:    If you would like to become an expert in free market economics from your hom you can also check out Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom.

Private Arbitration instead of Public Courts

I just finished watching Tom Woods guest hosting the Peter Shchiff radio show talk to the founder of a private arbitration company judge.me, Peter-Jan Celis.  Celis explains the benefits of using this service as an alternative to the expensive and time consuming process of public courts.  The site also claims that its philosophy of "ex aequo et bono" ensures there is no legal mumbo jumbo.  This is explained in the following way:  "which means our arbitrators act 'from equity and conscience'. Without legal loopholes to exploit, there is no need to hire an expensive lawyer."  

The current system of justice has so many inherent bad incentives it is no wonder the average person feels like they can't get justice in a court room.  Judges, cops, and lawyers are all on the paying end of a monopolized protection racket.  Judges justify the tickets the cops give out.  Lawyers collect a hefty fee for the incredible skill of "navigating" the millions of laws on your behalf.  No one can represent you except a lawyer approved by the government after several years of re education anyway.  Cops provide fresh leads for the lawyers.  It's just a big cesspit of corruption.

The judge.me solutions sounds like a great way to reduce the time and resources needed to resolve the average small claims disputes.  This is a private company who doesn't have a monopoly.  So if they lose their stellar reputation for being quick, efficient, and just then they lose their clients.  This is the perfect free market check on justice that our society needs.

Could anyone even imagine how to go about getting a judge fired for being corrupt?  I guess we could ask our lawyer to help get rid of the system which ensures his steady flow of clients.  I guess we could ask the police to help get rid of the system which ensures they have a constant flow of tax money ticket money.  Good luck to you on that endeavor.  Let me know how it goes?

It just fills me with joy to see someone striving to provide free market alternatives to closed market monopolies.  I'm sure everyone can see the benefits of having control over how their contracts are enforced.  And probably the best aspect of all about a private solution such as this is that there is no gun involved in the transaction!  Imagine trading with people with no guns to your head.  Well perhaps it is difficult for us to imagine at present, but I have faith in the new generation of liberty lovers to bring us into the new age of freedom.

If you find this topic intriguing please don't stop reading about the subject.  Many economists and philosophers explain in great detail the fundamental principles of private law and its advantages over the public system.  To learn more about the academic intricacies of this type of court system, I would recommend watching Hans Hermann Hoppe on youtube, State or Private Law Society.  You can also always just Google, "Private Law."