Central banks have a target inflation of about 2% and actively try to prevent deflation (much more so than inflation). In general moderate inflation is a good thing as it puts some pressure on keeping the money in circulation instead of hording it.
This is because inflation isn’t a bug it’s a feature.
Anything that transfers wealth up the chain, from working class to middle class and from middle class to upper class, is a feature of the western economic system.
For example, in England and Wales the Bank of England is charged with keeping inflation at a target of around two per cent. This means that the pound in a workers pocket is supposed to devalue. The advantage is that the government borrows money in its own currency so inflation means that its debt goes down (in real terms) when inflation goes up.
In other words, it’s similar to a tax in that the money you earn today, by the time you spend it, is worth less by design.
Inflation does has have a positive feature of encouraging investment and spending, rather than hoarding under a mattress. The money is put back into the economy because every day it isn’t, it loses value. If money were getting more valuable over time (called “deflation”), you’re incentivized to treat it like an asset—not a currency—and hold onto it as long as you can (like Bitcoin), rather than reinvest or spend.
Yes, this is true but you also have to factor in the marginal propensity to consume, or in plain English, the poorer you are the more of your income you have to spend on necessities like rent or groceries.
There are always high interest investments available to people with a large amounts of spare cash floating about even when inflation is low.
If your rent + utilities + food = your income then you ain’t hoarding money even in a deflationary spiral.
No, but you are more likely to get fired and lose your income as demand for labor drops.
There are a ton of issues with our economic system, and there are a ton of structures in place to funnel money up, but keeping a moderate inflation is not one of those things.
Inflation is a specific counter-measure against people who already have a ton of money. It provides a reason for them not to just “take their ball and go home” once they have a pile of money.
To shelter their money from inflation, they need to either risk it on the open market, allowing that capital to do things like pay worker salaries, or buy things like GICs which are essentially loaning money to the government so the government can do things like build roads or fund social programs.
In either/all cases, inflation is designed to do the exact opposite of funnel money upwards, it’s a mechanic to wrench that money out of the hands of the wealthy.
I feel like this story is essentially propaganda at this point- at least in the USA where the ‘risk’ for the rich never plays out.
The rich don’t actually risk their money. They risk the government’s money and other’s lives and livelihoods. When they fail, they get bailed. Bailed out by the banks. Or they simply don’t pay their bills and lay off all their employees and let everyone else take a bath.
Rather than inflating everything, why don’t we tax the shit out of their held wealth? Seems more direct without all the side effects of making FOOD, HOUSING, AND HEALTHCARE UNAFFORDABLE
There isn’t anything wrong with the mechanic of inflation as a means to encourage money to be reinvested into the economy.
You’re right about cost of living not keeping up with wages. You’re right about fucked up taxes on the ultra wealthy. You’re right about a massive erosion of social services. you’re right that the USA healthcare system is fucked up.
These are all issues that are distinct from the plan of maintaining a moderate (2%) inflation rate.
Yes, we SHOULD get living wages, unions and legislation should do that. The top tax bracket SHOULD be taxed at 70% that’s tax policy. We SHOULD reinvest in social services that’s government poicy. You SHOULD get universal healthcare, that’s a government program. Inflation isn’t the thing keeping you from any of these things.
Yes, and the people at the top do keep their money in circulation, and as a result their wealth stays constant across inflation while workers’ wages and savings go down.
I have no idea why you don’t see that as a transfer of wealth.
You say it incentivizes the rich to not hoard cash. Well, they don’t. In fact, it incentivizes everyone to not hoard cash, but the rich are the only ones with sufficient cash to trade that cash for income-generating assets.
It incentivizes everyone by punishing everyone for holding cash, but only the upper class is able to evade that punishment by converting their wealth. Poor people don’t have though cash to transform it into wealth. Their cash is only useful to them as cash.
This is why the poor are feeling the inflation the worst. People who own no stock are the ones hit hardest when the government printed a bunch of money and injected it into the stock market.
It provides a reason for them not to just “take their ball and go home” once they have a pile of money.
If that’s the reason for it it’s not doing its job. Investments are much like savings to high net worth individuals and their investments are managed by someone else and they simply lay in the cut and collect dividends. Yes there is a risk to investments but if you’re in a good wealth fund then over time you’re almost guaranteed to win even if you have disastrous months here and there.
Or just buy gold and bitcoin and other things that aren’t tied to the value of the dollar.
This is exactly how inflation is a tax on the poor: there are ways to counteract inflation, which only become available at a certain level of wealth.
Basically disposable income is safe because you can convert it; and non-disposable income is not safe because you can’t convert it.
Gold is a shiny bauble material, but never grows. It can be a good investment for that part that you want to put aside and will just sit. Bitcoin is invaluable for money laundering, but very unstable for saving/investing. Look at how many have been fleeced when someone gets their keys, or lost their coins by a hard drive failure. It is costly in electrical use to mine.
There are far better things not tied to the value of a dollar. I would suggest very low-fee indexed mutual funds as one better alternative. They offer an accessible way for people to get a share of the means of production. My experience is that for people who can can learn to not be ruled by fear or greed can, over time, build enough wealth to live better lives.
Well, yes but no. The typical worker (sadly) has zero real savings and ideally their union manages to get at least an inflation adjusted raise each year. So those people are actually not effected by inflation at all.
It’s mostly a tax on upper middle class savings and a way to sneakily decrease wages if there is no strong labour representation preventing it.
Which union secured their members a 10% wage increase in the past year?
The poor are the most affected by inflation. Just because their spending pattern doesn’t shift doesn’t meant they aren’t affected. The shift in spending patterns is a way to avoid the effects of inflation. A person whose income cannot be diverted is the most effected.
It’s like a plane is crashing and one person ejects while the other person doesn’t. Yes getting ejected from a plane’s cockpit is a high energy event. But crashing in the plane is an even higher-energy event.
The people who you are saying are “most affected” by inflation are experiencing those effects in the activation of anti-inflation mechanisms in their life. Those anti-inflation mechanisms while they do represent an effect are not as big as the effects felt by those without access to those mechanisms.
Some managed to do so, but 10% inflation is exceptional anyways.
Otherwise I don’t agree. Obviously the poor are effected “the most” by any adverse economic effect due to their low coping capacity / economic buffer. But that they are especially affected by inflation is not universally true.
You need to drill down a bit further what inflation actually entails. The common “basket” used for calculating “the” inflation is far from perfect and depending on your consumption pattern you might hardly see any inflation in your personal expenses if it is mainly driven by an increase in energy costs as was the case in Europe during the last year.
Classic inflation aka devaluation of money only effects those that have money (savings). Of course if you have an increase in certain prices due to some external shock this can have a much broader effect, but it is actually wrong to call that “inflation”.
I’ve been taught that inflation deincentivizes hoarding wealth too, but seeing how wealth is still hoarded, I’m not convinced it’s an effective tool.
That’s the difference, they hoard wealth and not currency. The value of assets do not go down when currency loses its value with inflation.
Wealthy have little to no cash that would lose value with inflation, they just buy everything on credit and have their wealth tied to assets and investments that probably gain value at least at the pace of inflation.
It’s still true that a deflationary economy would be a mess though. If we had deflation, the rich wouldn’t even bother investing and would literally just sit on a pile of gold like Smaug. I know trickle-down doesn’t work but an economy where nothing circulates would be hellish.
A little bit of inflation is a fuel for economic activity. If money doesn’t lose value people have less incentive to put it to work; if it gains value(deflation) people have all the incentive to hoard money.
Currency has no inherent value, it’s purpose is to facilitate trades(economic activity). Products and services are the real value in an economy.
That being said inflation is a real tax and disproportionately hurts the poor.
Inflation happens when rich people find out you’ve got more money and rush to fuck you out of that too.
That’s why any kind of tax break, stimulus or welfare is met with “but inflation!”
Experts in pseudoscience may claim “it encourages people not to horde wealth!” but it’s just another lie that makes rich people richer when it fails to deliver for the 1000th time.
All fiat currencies are designed to prevent hyperinflation and deflation.
Why is deflation bad for an economy? It encourages prior to hold off on spending money as money tomorrow is worth more than money today. It also means people are less likely to invest money, as you can get better returns by saving your money under your mattress.
Everyone seems to be missing the most dangerous part of deflation: If prices fall year over year, collateralize credit becomes incredibly unstable. If you borrow a million dollars from the bank to build a house and then in five years that house is worth half a million…well you would be stupid not to walk away for your loan and leave the bank with a half million dollar hole in its balance sheet. If the whole market does this consistently year after year then banking becomes impossible and the whole system collapses. Weve had this happen before, such as during the Great Depression and very briefly during other market crashes like in 2008. If a central bank has to choose between inflation and deflation, they will choose inflation every time.
So you’re saying that deflation hurts the banks? Oh no! Not the banks!
Fuck regular people, right? A home is obviously an investment first and shelter second. Why would anyone need a home to live in, if they can just rent it out for obscene amounts of money, because banks have to have infinite profits?
It doesnt hurt the banks, it destroys them. The modern economy is unable to function without banks. I suppose if you were in favor of entirely destroying the modern economic system, long term deflation would be the easiest way to do it. Dont expect some sort of socialist utopia to come out the other side though. Last time we had a serious deflationary run we ended up with a handful of obscenely wealthy robber barons and a world war.
Last time we had a serious deflationary run we ended up with a handful of obscenely wealthy robber barons and a world war.
Should we at least, differentiate deflation due to technologies, deflation due to stagnant economy and “price slashing” and those desperation crimes?
We should acknowledge deflation due to technology, right?
Couple it with no “passive income” pumping money for the “rich reservoirs”, overall prices gets cheaper in line with everyone’s active earning? (All it takes is remove the “passive income economy” that generates nothing but “financing”. Tax/donations does the same, without interest being created?
If you borrow a million dollars from the bank to build a house and then in five years that house is worth half a million…
I don’t understand much. What so bad about house losing value, if we never intended it as capitalistic investment?
Everything suppose to be “utilitarian” basis instead of ever-inflating “profit” basis that hurt majority, no?
Just my curiosity why deflation is a bad thing, other than monetary incentive system broke down and no one working (right now, monetary system still broke down on opposite spectrum due to purchasing power collapse, I assume?)
Edit: clarification
Profitable or not, a house is a shelter, not renting or trading item? (This is what I meant by capitalistic mindset, not about corporation, but the very profit mindset of human.)
Edit2: clarification2
Yes, same opinion on investment and passive income. All capitalistic nature. Impossible to earn passively unless someone or some machine enslaved, right? Yet everyone love passive income idea so much, pumping profit everywhere, more money more inflation, no? In the past, people might save years to a house, now, people earn endless passive income to no house, I think that’s the very reason to it. Passive income is somehow bad. (Not to be mixed with voluntary welfare system, passive income is auto sucking involuntarily, iinm)
Edit3: clarification3
So about the house worth dropping. In bookkeeping, historical cost don’t drop. However, future value inflation exist thanks to “profit future inflation”. So, we still have to settle book value of loan, I don’t get it how the value dropped though? A liability is a liability, not to be messed with “inflating fluctuating market value”, no?
Im not sure what you are trying to say exactly. If you are running your responses through a translator you might try using smaller words so more of the meaning comes through.
Say you owe the bank roughly a million dollars and the house is only worth half a million. If you continue to pay the bank, you are paying double price for your house, plus interest. If you defaulted on the loan you could show up at the bank auction in a fake mustache and get it for half price. There are people out there who would work themselves to death to pay their mortgage because they see it as their sacred duty to the bank. Those people are suckers, and they end up very poor in this scenario.
Now keep in mind that this isnt just house prices were talking about. Stock prices, salaries, food, land, machines, fuel, clothing, vehicles, every month the price of all of it goes down and the value of little slips of paper goes up. This is the ultimate passive income. If you are rich you cash out everything, put your paper in a vault and each month you become richer. There no investment, no economic growth, no liquidity. The economy strangles to death while the people with all the paper control everything thats left.
This is the dream of all the gold, silver, crypto bugs trying to create deflationary currency. They figure they can stockpile enough of the new currency now and come out the other end of the disaster as the new owners of everything.
Even if the value of money goes up, it’s by a paltry 1-2% and it still wouldn’t seem to make sense to hoard rather than invest, unless I’m missing something. In what scenario would any rich person just sit on their money? Likewise, the impact of 2% deflation on a bank loan is well within the variance in rates we see today, and I imagine in such an economy the rates would be adjusted somewhat to compensate.
Simply put, the difference between an inflating vs deflating currency doesn’t seem enough to drastically alter people’s behavior. In the short to medium term it seems almost a non-issue, at least for regular people, and in the long term people won’t get fucked out of their life savings. I imagine the vast majority of the population doesn’t invest their money. Which policy would they prefer?
Let me try understand this.
Say you owe the bank roughly a million dollars and the house is only worth half a million. If you continue to pay the bank, you are paying double price for your house, plus interest.
Material cost or anything spent never change? We can’t regret buying expensive computers in past? Everything, even if loan. Loan only default on bankruptcy, “no property ownership ban”? Do people want that?
There no investment, no economic growth, no liquidity.
Incentive of “profit” system. Until it backfires with overloaded money. Active income generate economy of production + money. Passive income skip production, overloaded money, inflation. Without profit system, big projects can only funded by slower tax/donations. But no one creating extra profit/inflation.
So you now get my point? Deflation happens because of good automation (slaving machine). Stopping passive income investment stops inflation. While waiting new automation, things get lesser labour and no inflation to demand additional income.
Where’s the loophole in my opinion?
I agree, it’s only natural a house would decrease in value after it’s been built. Just like cars or anything else. You could mitigate that by renovating etc of course.
Because once a corporation increases prices due to “supply and demand” or whatever bullshit reason they make up that week, those prices never go back down if the reason changes. conveniently.
Every corporation will say “we need to increase the price on “x” because the primary supplier in Bolivia is facing economic turmoil…blah blah blah.” But once that turmoil is over and supply returns to normal, they don’t bother taking the prices back down and rely on the fact that modern society is too distracted by their “conveniences” to care.
“The people will not revolt. They will not look up from their screens.” – a stage play based on George Orwell’s 1984
They (the super-rich) have created a class of people beneath them who don’t notice or care that they’re being fucked over so long as they are provided with more and more vapid content to consume.
“The people will not revolt. They will not look up from their screens.” – a stage play based on George Orwell’s 1984
Striking line–now we just have to figure out how to get people off their screens and onto streets.
Things either need to be really, really bad and people are done or we need to find what they care about more than being comfortable. I was not always politically active. It took until my late twenties and seeing how bad things can really be. I have been an activist on the human rights front for about a decade. And it only happened because I really saw the issues in my country and continent. But while my family knows as I make sure they know, and some kind of care, it is not important enough for them.
But weirdly. My country had literal neo-Nazis as a minister and everyone with a brain thinks we still do as bids of the same feather and so on. And suddenly my leftist but not active friends became active, online and outside that. It is weird when I have been warning that this is the road we are on for the better part of a decade it took it to happen for people to take action. Thankfully we are still solidly democratic so this might work. At least for a few years.
