Words Mean Things-Page 2

If justice serves only the strong, where is the need for courteous, rational discourse? There won't be a need for it because the strong will take what they will via force or coercion. And as I alluded to earlier, this simply isn't civilized.

I'm not convinced yet that I've adequately addressed what is meant by "effective communication", although it seems painfully obvious that effective ambiguity is its polar opposite.

To communicate effectively, we need to operate under a common set of rules to which all parties will agree to abide by. Practically speaking, this means using good grammar. Formally, this means adhering to the rules of logic and semantics. Using logic and semantics necessarily entails the use of good grammar because the aim is to dispense with any form of ambiguity.

One of my pet peeves is the profligate use of the word "inflation" with respect to monetary policy. Most pundits would have us believe that inflation is simply an increase in the cost of goods and services. As with any good demagogued issue, there is a grain of truth to the assertion. Yes, higher prices frequently accompany inflation, but in and of themselves, higher prices do not necessarily indicate inflation, only an increase in what is known as the consumer price index.

For example, suppose we were to have a nation with an economy with $100 in circulation, and I owned a widget that was valued at $1, and for which I paid $1. I would own 1% of the economy. Let us further suppose that our government has decided to increase the amount of currency over the next 12 months to the point that at that time, there is $110 in circulation. If my widget still represents 1% of the economy, it will now be worth $1.10.

Now let us assume the same economy, except that after 12 months, there is still only $100 in circulation, but my widget still increases to a price of $1.10.

In the former example, the price of my widget has gone up by 10%, but relative to the overall value of the economy, its value has not changed. This is inflation. In the latter example, my widget has actually increased in value relative to the size of the economy. This is an increase in the consumer price index.

Some may wonder what any of this talk of economics has to do with logic and semantics, and it is a good question. Primarily, it has to do with poor grammar and/or intentional ambiguity.

The apologists for the position contrary to mine are playing fast and loose with a definition, and that is an egregious violation of effective communication. To entertain any hope of solving problems, of continuing peaceful, rational discourse, this sort of thing cannot be allowed to simply slide.

In this case, justice is serving the strong because the people that benefit the most from actual inflation (as opposed to simple increases in the CPI) are the powerful, those who hold enormous debt. Borrow at the value of today's dollar and pay the loan back at the value of the dollar 25 or 30 years from now. Meanwhile, many people do not have increases in income that maintain pace with inflation. In effect, they are falling behind, getting weaker.

There are a host of issues that fail this communications test, inflation being only one of them. Examine what you are told with an understanding of what the terms sophistry and demagoguery really mean. Remember, without effective communication, our only recourse is eventually to violence. I don't want that, as I'm certain you don't either.

I could go on, but frankly, I think that I've gone on about as far as your attention (and mine, for that matter) can take you. As I was instructed in the Houston Police Academy, your mind can only absorb as much as your backside can tolerate.

NOTE: Copyright by Zim 2/26/04