Comments by "Charles Brightman" (@charlesbrightman4237) on "Fed's Kashkari, ECB's Lagarde, BOE's Bailey on Inflation Risks" video.

  1. I WILL KEEP SAYING IT UNTIL IT CHANGES OR I DIE: 'We The People' need to rise up and pass a law that the US Fed has to have an annual economic inflation goal of zero percent (0%), NOT 2%. As America gets greater, a US Dollar should be able to buy more, not less.
    4
  2. Economic Inflation is 'bad': Multiple whammy: a. Of course, prices go up. b. Quantity goes down. c. Quality often suffers. d. And all species from this Earth are no more one day.
    1
  3.  @You2oob  Gold/Commodity standard: Consider the following: With a fixed amount of assets (backing to the currency), obviously, the more currency printed with the same amount of backing would have the currency in the economy be worth less, (as that backing would have to be spread out over more currency). And visa versa too. Removing currency from the economy with the same amount of backing would increase the value of the remaining currency in the economy. But now, as population grows, each individual would want and possibly need a certain amount of currency that has a certain amount of buying power to live off of. More currency would have to be put into the economy so that each individual would have a certain amount of currency. With fixed backing, more currency into the economy would have the currency in that economy be worth less. The buying power of the individual's currency would buy less. But now, as currently in the USA, the USA's reputation backs the USA's currency. If the USA's reputation is better in this world, it increases the value of the USA's currency in this world, (given a fixed amount of currency in the world), and the USA's currency should buy more. Conversely, if the USA's reputation suffers in this world, it would decrease the value of the USA's currency in this world, (given a fixed amount of currency in the world). And then, if assets, including the size of the population (citizens being perceived as an asset and not as a liability), increase, the backing to the currency would increase, thereby allowing more currency to be printed and put into the economy without reducing the value of the currency in the economy. Therefore, BOTH fixed assets (gold, etc) as well as the size of the population could be utilized as the backing to a currency. A certain amount of currency could be put into the economy that would have a certain amount of buying power. If fixed asses and/or size of the population changed, so too could the value and/or amount of currency in the economy, depending upon what one wanted to accomplish, ie: maintaining a goal of zero percent annual inflation.
    1
  4.  @eugene9661  Why? Plus, some might think I am too smart to be President.
    1