ECONOMIC GROWTH AND INFLATION IN NIGERIA.Part 1

The blogger ibikunlelaniyan disputes the concept of inflation in this pieceEnjoy Global economy as it were since the dawn of mordern times does rise and fall as in the prior times and we seem bedevilled with the avalanche of the concept of inflation by modern economists trapped in the confusion of macroeconomics to make it the greatest headache of mordern age.We cannot disagree that inflation is a fundamental force in economic growth and both economic growth and inflation seem to move in diverse and stark opposite direction. However in this edition the author seem to disgree with meaning and concept of inflation specifically its basic definition.It has been defined as the general mode of risinng prices and nothing but rising prices and i seem to bicker with this cluless position.The spiral of nflationary bout that seems dampen growth and development can be attributed to the misconception rather than the heavier tenses linked with inflation.We cannot quantify the strategic impact of inflation untl we have been able to resolve the puzzling puzzles surrounding its mythical definitive appeal. Policies,concept and theories have refused or failed woefully to tame the ecalating scourge and they appear only to patch the minacious salmagundis of its spiral.Ordinarily speaking,it is an hypothesis to contend with the phenomenal devil that you hardly untwine its nature let alone a lasting resolution proffered. Th writer in the next piece is poised to not ony truly define the frankeinstein and what it takes to conquer this greatest evil of mordern time but unleash its critique on tiring concept and earlier definitions they 've provided over time since wealth of nation was writen in 1776.The relentless data presentation useless and a vain labour unless we redirect the mental energy of millions and billions of manpower of researches exerted over the centuries since mordern industrial revolution was begun.Getting down to this brasstacks we should be able to handle golden age economics with ease.Only a blind will define a thing or identify a thing by its causes and blind out out its effect and to be so enmamoured is to work your backward from the ideal and reliable solution ought to be proffered to the intending attemptbyfacing stark realities. Is it not true that there is always a rise in mass poverty when aggregate demand rises beyond agregate suppply when prices rise which erupted inequality of wealth in the process?is it not also true when it haunts suppliers too and mass poverty transfered to them supply rises above demand? However we are not in doubt to contend that the mordern theories of inflation is undoubtedly influenced by the classical thought and theory of inflation.This laid emphasis on the role of money and that prices rise in proportion to the quantity supply of money disaggregated from inflationary influenced non monetary factors.We do agreed that collectivist thoughts is grossly lacking and economists differ markedly across their ideological divide.The keynesians based their concept on nonmonetary factors to avers that aggregate demand as constituent factor and defy logic of monetatry expansion.Although mordern theories agreed that both supply and demand side are constituent factors the dominance of monetary expansion endorsed by monetarism has quashed other aspersions in the quantity theory of money. We can thence contend wealth and mass poverty is basically distributed and redistributed according to disequalibrium of the market forces and so much concern concern should be placed on the disequalibrium of market forces which also has been defined differently.Does it make sense to infer that the interaction between demand pull and cost push inflation modes coagulate to influence prices or price level ostracising the price effect and inequality in the distribution motive and also alienated causes from the stable of definitive concept?The mordern theories of inflation cannot play a vital role in the antiinflationary movement nor inspirational in its policy formulation. Does it make sense to say when the monetary and real esctors are in the equalibrium then the economy is automatically also in the equilibrium,in the face of grinding mass poverty as such that happens in the third world economy?I beg to disagree.To be candideconomic agents must be at the equalibrium level so to say equalitarian prices and both top and bottom percentiles capable of equalitarian demanding and supplying power.This isegalitarian economics and prices ought to behave according to this context. Moreover when there is diequalibrium people desire and capability to hold money even emoney or cryptos decline.Hence egalitarian price level including egalitarian investment declines as human poverty index.Anything to the contrary seem to work backward price level and no end to the patching vendatta.