And you are assuming there is zero scalability in current "farmland" and no substitude products to "beef stew". (you're not lucky - I come from a very rural region) Just as a very down to earth example: milk and cheese cows will be converted, etc. etc. it's you that are assuming an unrealistic textbook scenario, tbh.
Really, the only thing that will happen is an increase in prices of variable entity, talking about "doubling" is absurd and it shows you're just arguing to be right. (and let's not even forget that you're assuming that people will use their wealth to consume more food, namely you're confusing "wealth" with "income"...)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
IJ, nothing says that redistribuiting the wealth in a completely homogeneous way will double the value of money in circulation. If that's your assumption, then surely everything you say makes (more) sense. But I don't see why it should hold, since it would imply 1) that all the wealth would be used for consumption; 2) that the propensity to consume of the bottom 50% in the "excess wealth" they would receive is fourfold the propensity to consume of those who currently hold that wealth.
I never claimed there would be no inflation, I simply argued against your assertion hat the price of everything will instantaneously double. Even if the state where to give a stipend of 100% their income to the bottom 50% bracket of the income distrubtion, prices would likely not double for standard goods, since people would not consume all their income.FDG, have you ever considered changing your user title to 'Non-inflatory economist'?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Your interpretation is then fancy, because Jim, in his post: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post947540 specifically talks about redistribuiting the existing wealth, not injecting exogenous money in the system.
You also may not believe he is assuming anything, but his conclusions do, so there isn't a lot to talk about. If we talk about "throwing money into the system" then in most cases prices would increase, but then we're not really arguing any interesting point, and we especially are not talking about the argument I was debating in my post.
The first part is obvious. The second: it would only double if all the additional exogenous income was used in the same proportion as the pre-existing part to buy additional beef. If you think so, then yes. May I instead think that there exists a satiation point for beef?It wouldn't change consumption. But prices would double. Increasing the money supply for those who demand beef would increase the price, FDG. And it would be close to double.
How? Do they all personally know Ben Bernanke and Mario Draghi?suppliers would recognize the increase in the money supply
How do they know they would obtain more profit by DOUBLING the price.and increase prices to obtain more profit.
Doesn't work like that, Monopoly does not allow "savings" to exist after the game has ended. It's a one-shot game.Basically both demand and supply would stay the same. We're simply talking about changing price levels. Have you ever played Monopoly with hundreds instead of thousands (and corresponding rents/prices of properties change proportionate to the level you play)? Or ever played with tens of thousands as opposed to simply thousands? The amount of money in supply does not change demand for certain items, but it would change the price of items. In a dynamic economy where suppliers control their prices, trying to maximize the amount they can earn, you could expect them to increase prices if people are able and willing to pay more.
William, I don't need any explanation from you on the matter. If you want to debate, bring your arguments (as Invisible Jim does), and don't just state them as facts.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I was talking about income because aqua's post was about P20/P80 Income distributions FDG. If I typed Wealth, my bad that's my poor/average beef stew economics for you.
You can help everyone to understand this topic better with your particular expertise. I would hope you are a treasure trove of statistics on the topic. For example you could correct Hkkmrs, useful but not the full story income distribution charts for the change in PPP over the years instead of inflation only.