Phillip Hammond said, in the debate, “The former Chancellor’s reputation is unravelling before his eyes. The man who rode the Asian tiger of imported deflation bleats that what is happening in Britain today is all someone else’s fault …“.

As much as I may agree with the quote (using the appropriate construction); Mr Hammond seems to use ‘flation (in this case deflation) as reflecting price decreases. While later in the speech he uses ‘flation (as in, inflation) to express the idea of price increases.

Do you share the opinion of the school that argues that inflation/deflation is simply about money supply. Hence, prices are consequent to the supply of money since, the greater the supply of money the less value it holds.

Here’s a link to someone who argues the point that ‘flation is money supply Inflation: What the heck is it?. Do you see any fallacies in his article?

Reply: Inflation is too much money chasing too few goods.

Nor, any criticism of the system of fiat currency. As a conservative, Mr Redwood, are you against fiat currency? I recall in the late 80s commentators were saying, ‘the tories have ran out of things to privatize’; why did you never privatize the currency? Can you comment on this on a later post?

I have conventional views on the virtues of a monopoly national currency.