Apparently, hyperinflation has made V. Kemp's two cents worth less than dirt.

Sorry, I had to make that joke. 

Gladiator, I believe avogadro is specifically trying to talk about the Community Reinvestment Act when he says that banks were required to lend to poor people.

Not to mention that there's no correlation between the debt itself and hyperinflation.

Germany, for example, had hyperinflation not because of debt but because it payed off the debt in a stupid way.

Guys, stop bashing Flint.  In this case, it's much easier to address his argument.

First, let's go to the causes of inflation.

You overspecified the second and third causes of inflation.  The thing is, inflation is a natural result of economic growth for multiple reasons.  First, there is the wage inflation that you talk about.  But second, there is just the general increase in purchasing.  An increase in purchasing justifies a business raising the price, which raises standards of living, causing wages to increase, creating the cycle.  I wouldn't say your models are wrong, but you specified them to the point where we don't evaluate all instances of inflationary causes.  For example, your model wouldn't take into account oil and food price increases during early '8.

Now anyway, what's the issue?

1: WE ARE IN A RECESSION!  That means inflation can't happen from wage-based inflation.  Normally, inflation and economic growth trade off because if money will be worth less in the future, people will spend now.  Also, the increased supply of currency allows easier access to the goods and services needed.  Even a stagflation period is impossible under modern circumstances unless Obama really screws up (which I'll get to momentarily).  That leaves the following scenarios:

Increase in the price of key goods and services
We get out of the recession first, then your hyperinflation happens
Or we become possibly the unluckiest society ever, suffering from both hyperinflation and economic growth without resource changes, in contradiction to most economic theory... and even then, the US would probably pull a Hitler and redo the currency.

First, I need to address stagflation (I will concede that stagflation would make your scenario possible, if stagflation were a possibility).

Stagflation is when we experience both economic decline and inflation, simply enough.  However, since, under normal circumstances, economic growth trades off with inflation, normal inflationary trends can't cause this.  The only way stagflation happens is when the price of key resources (i.e., oil) rises, forcing businesses to raise their prices.

So for your scenario to happen, a key resource would need to become unavailable during Obama's administration.  I'm going to start going through them:

Oil: Possible.  However, the current low oil prices are being caused by the global economic downturn.  That means that for oil prices to rise, normally, the recession would have to be lifted.
Political factors could cause a rise in oil prices (i.e., if the US attacked Iran).  However... hmm... is it just me, or does Obama seem like the type who wouldn't be hardline on bombing Iran?
Oh, and an alternative energy initiative would shut this one down the drain.  But that actually brings me to my next one...

Food: Yeah, we've heard it a lot.  Food prices are rising.  Ethanol probably causes it.  However, there are non-ethanol biofuels coming into the market which don't cause the tradeoff with food.  Maybe just a hunch, but I have a feeling ethanol specifically is going down the tubes, either due to a switch to a different biofuel or due to a larger energy initiative.

That means stagflation is impossible.  Pure and simple.  For your scenario to be true, we have to get out of the recession, and getting out must cause inflation.  You have not explained the "getting out of the recession" part of your scenario, so it has no credence.  You need to first outline the scenario of how the economy will rise because that is a key factor in whether your hyperinflation scenario can be true.  Quite simply, tell me a story in your next post.

I also want to look at a couple of your arguments:

First, that cutting taxes on the rich will reduce their response to inflation:
1: That's a temporary fix, at the very best.  If taxes were 40%, and were lowered to 35% due to 5% inflation, then there may be an offset the first year.  But year 2 (assuming a 2% inflation this time, because we're assuming something has been influenced by your policy), a 2% cut would bring inflation to 33%.  But you don't get the benefit from the previous year because that five percent reduction was based on the assumption of the previous year's inflation.  It's still compensating.

2: Economic growth trades off with inflation.  If you lower taxes on the rich, that allows them to spend more, actually CAUSING inflation because it increases the demand for certain goods, increasing the price for those goods (Any idiot can produce economic growth whenever they want.  Macroeconomics is about balancing growth and inflation).

3: We want some inflation.  Maybe 1-2% inflation is actually desired by the government.  Why?  Because if we're not experiencing inflation, we're experiencing deflation (the status quo), which really sucks because it stops people from spending altogether.  If you think inflation is a bad vicious cycle of economic decline, deflation should be your worst enemy.

As for printing money....

HOLY [] SHIT!  WHERE THE HELL DO PEOPLE GET THE IDEA THAT BUSH/OBAMA ARE JUST SITTING AT THEIR XEROX MACHINE MAKING HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS?  ARE YOU PEOPLE SERIOUS?  I HAVE YET TO FIND EVEN A SINGLE QUALIFIED SOURCE THAT SAYS THE GOVERNMENT IS JUST PRINTING MONEY BLANTANTLY!

Now that I got over that... there is one way you could be right.  While the US government doesn't have the authority to print money (anymore, at least), the Fed does have the authority.

The Fed's current method of "printing money" is through monetary policy.  That's already factored into the economy right now (interest rates), soooooooo there's no effect. 

And by the way, if the government were to stop "printing money," as you put it, then the economy would go into the shithole immediately.  Why?  Not because we need the extra money as a crutch to stimulate growth (the amount of actual bills produced is extremely small), but because that currency produced is used to lend to banks temporarily to prevent the banks from going bankrupt due to large withdrawals of cash by depositors.

> Father Communism wrote:

> the stores have more money in the bank then...

1: Best case scenario, it's an indirect pumping of money into the bank.  More steps, which means the banks will get less money in the end put into them.

"and yes, poor people owuld buy thier basic needs and get back on thier feet.  Then you have a bunch of poor people affording interview cloths, a healthy diet, and a better attitude overall...they get better jobs, and MAGIC...money goes into the bank the second they start making more money than thier basic needs...that simple. "

With... a couple hundred dollars?  Seriously?  You're arguing that this one magical stimulus will suddenly get poor people rich?
Plus, there's the above "indirect pumping" thing.

"and besides...your going to give rich people money to just put it in the bank? Why doesnt the goverment just put money in the bank? its not peoples fault the banks are in a crisis anyways...its the banks fault..."

Giving money to the banks directly?  Hey, that works too!

> Father Communism wrote:

> yeah, get milliosn of poor people putting money in the bank is better.  if they get on thier feet, thier income will grow to a point were they put it in the bank

But you just said that they would spend the money on stuff in stores!  There's no increase in net income production.

And even if you don't buy that... it's an issue of simple math.

Rich are more likely to put the money in the bank.  Poor people are more likely to spend it.  That means there's greater probability of higher investment in banks, and therefore a greater amount of money put into the banks, if you give the money to the rich people.  This is all your analysis, not mine, Communism. 

> Father Communism wrote:

> if you put 1000 dollars in a rich persons hand...he probably already had a big screen tv...so he would prob put it in his bank and it would be spent keeping his lifestyle where it is.

Um... then that's what we should do.

I don't know if you've read the news, Communism: We're in a banking crisis. 

High temperatures!

Homosexuality is gay!

Sent you my email a little while ago.  You can delete your email from here if you want.

> ☭ Fokker wrote:

> Old news.

I think that's his point.