As money becomes more desired, goods and services (for which money is exchanged) should become cheaper, in terms of money. Right?
I can demand more cheeseburgers and more grape sodas at the same time, but I can only exercise this demand by reducing my demand for dollars, or whatever else might be accepted as currency in exchange. To speak of an increased demand for money, unless its qualified by a reduced desire for other things, doesn’t balance. People always want more money, as a medium of exchange in order to satisfy their unlimited wants in a world where everything is limited by scarcity.
But unless they’re willing to part with something else, any talk about their increased demand for money is economic nonsense. When the demand for money rises, all else equal, the demand for other goods/services should fall. People should be more willing to part with other things (i.e., lower prices) if there truly is a rising “demand for money.”
I don’t think one flows from the other.
A true free market will not alter the prices of something simply because one individual’s desire for more money.
Unless you were talking about enough people demanding more money, where the shopkeeper notices revenue dropping and is forced to drop the prices of cheeseburgers and grape soda to entice you back, right?
If people want more money, they usually think in terms of working extra hours or lottery payouts rather than dropping their levels of consumption, no?
Did I miss something?
You’re mixing macro and micro. I’ll respond with a subsequent post.
cheers
Maybe our view of demanding more money is distorted because if I demand more money, I can get it, thanks to fiat money/fractional reserve banking ;-)
Completely off-topic:
I thought this might be of some interest to you. I just came upon some footage of the gassing of the protesters last night outside of the RNC. I’m trying to give this footage more exposure.
“Protestors Tear Gassed! Raw footage – gnooze tear gassed in St. Paul!”
http://gnooze.com/archives/235