The general welfare problem, doesn’t necessarily lend itself to the general welfare solution, as outlined by John Nash:
“Times of economic crises may be compared, we feel, with occasions of great wind storms in Nature. So if we wish to minimize to human suffering resulting from typhoons or hurricanes what should we do?” John Nash, Ideal Money, 2010
I recently noticed that Frances Coppola published a book called “The Case for People’s Quantitative Easing” and I was interested in what argument she meant to put forth.
Here I found an interview promoting her book and the ideas in it:
I have also been engaging in many dialogues across the internet and find myself very often suggesting to people that words don’t have specific definitions but only what we intend to convey and what is understood by the listener.
When we use words as if they have an objective meaning it allows the speaker to make a seemingly reasonable point on the surface but using semantics that can’t be (logically) parsed when the definitions intended become transparent.
In the above interview (@7:35) Frances says this:
She has asserted that the phenomenon didn’t cause inflation (twice) and then ends by admitting it could be argued it did cause inflation.
On a related note but in a different space and in response to me pointing this problem of semantics out to a fellow twitter peer Frances claimed:
To which I respond with an example of her using this definition of inflation (and its not the only time in the blog she does it):
This is the blog I got it from:
Arithmetic for Austrians
This piece grew from a number of conversations with people of Austrian economic persuasion, mostly Bitcoiners and…
Frances claims the quote is out of context but also simultaneously admits she used the term inflation to refer to an increase in the supply of units:
To be clear she reasserts her admission but while also denying it:
Backtracking (She references her book and says “I do not use” but before she claimed she has NEVER used…) and muted: