I'm glad that Richard Lipsey has responded with his explanation:"I am   
sorry if my elliptical expression 'inflationary pressure' was confusing.   
I did not want to go in detail into a first year lecture but here is a   
bit more detail that now seems called for. If more income is earned and   
spent, that adds to aggregate demand (or as Keynes would have put it   
Aggregate Consumption Expenditure)."  
  
I questioned Lipsey's claim that people earning more income and spending   
it constitutes an "inflationary pressure" with the quote from J.S. Mill   
to force a confrontation with the Keynesian mythology that people   
spending their own incomes produce inflation.  It is not only in first   
year macroeconomics textbooks that this myth is taught.  It exists in   
upper level texts as well.  What the Mill quotation explains is that   
before the so-called aggregate demand shifts to the right, supposedly to   
raise the price level, the aggregate supply curve must have shifted to   
the right as well.  People earn income from producing goods and/or services.  
  
There are two causes of the aggregate demand curve shifting to the right   
without first an increase in supply (income).  They are (1) an increase   
in the quantity of money (currency) and (2) a decrease in the demand for   
money (currency) to hold.  Without an increase in the quantity of money,   
an increase in production and income must reduce the price level: note   
that P = H/ky, where P = the price level, H = quantity of (high-powered)   
money, k = proportion of income held as cash, and y = real output or   
income.  Thus, it is quite misleading to talk about inflationary   
pressures without mentioning changes in the quantity of money (currency)   
or its demand by the public.  The fact that we need monetary   
transactions to estimate the GDP is irrelevant to this point.  
  
Keynes (1936) gave us the explanation Lipsey has repeated because he   
couldn't make much meaning of the classical quantity theory of money as   
an explanation of the price level.  Keynes (1936, 18), indeed, quoted   
the Mill explanation I cited but misinterpreted it.  I'm still hopeful   
that those who have been teaching the Keynesian confusions would be   
willing to reexamine them in light of subsequent criticism.  
  
James Ahiakpor