111–120 of 619 posts
In my mind, central banks and the all the levels of governments should be getting weekly (if not daily) reports of hiring, job losses, house building, and rental prices / turnovers in like a Grafana dashboard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could have chosen 0 or -2% but they like to reap that 2% free money premium..
Slight inflation encourages money to be put towards productive use and punishes hoarding. Choosing a deflationary monetary policy is unconscionable, just think for a moment what the consequences would be.
Or put another way, punishes saving. Forcing people to "save" by loaning the money to businesses and governments bonds and equities is good for politicians who like to be measured by economic metrics. But it's bad for being able to actually save for the future, and reducing dependencies on banks, leading to the moral hazard (with 0% inflation you could have narrow banking without problems).
The more money the banks print, the richer they get, with the side-effect that prices rise (they make the monetary units less scarce and worth less). 2-3% just happens to be the most they can get away with in the long term without the population getting concerned. What the general population don't realise is that the value of goods and services are going down over time, due to efficiency increases, at a rate of aroun…
This is wrong. You’ve misunderstood the creation of credit and money.
See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105752191... - but then spend time reading the relevant legislation pieces.
You can safely ignore most of the mainstream economist schools of thought since the actual operational side of money as required by law is mostly a blind spot for them. Economic schools of thought do not link to relevant legislation when sharing their fairy tales since the laws the banks operate under result in behaviour distinct from that claimed by any major economic school of thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2) Inflation reduces the true value (cost) of debt. And with $34.5 trillion of it, that’s a big incentive to keep it around. This is the point that a lot of people miss. Inflation is good for governments as well as businesses who can exploit high inflation to raise prices and shrinkflate products disproportionatly while lowing their wage bills in real terms. But it inflicts the most suffering on not just the workin…
> sensible/frugal ones who minimize their debt and accumulate some amount of savings What if this is wrong and being frugal is not sensible?
The more money the banks print, the richer they get, with the side-effect that prices rise (they make the monetary units less scarce and worth less). 2-3% just happens to be the most they can get away with in the long term without the population getting concerned. What the general population don't realise is that the value of goods and services are going down over time, due to efficiency increases, at a rate of aroun…
> They are roughly the same price in gold as they were in the 1970s So you're implying that there was no inflation between 2011 and 2022 (gold prices were basically the same) or that prices increasing 8 times or so between 2000 and 2011 because gold got a lot more expensive? Gold is just a random commodity affected by market supply/demand just like every other commodities (or bitcoin). Implying it's some sort of a "h…
At the same time IMHO you’re right in pointing out that gold is a poor measurement of the true cost of a house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe leading economists didn't see this coming. Even if they didn't originally, it's been clear now, for decades. This is the system working as intended, making government spending easy and gradually worsening poor's people lives.
Are poor people's lives objectively worse now than they were, say, 40 years ago?
> Since 1963, inflation has risen 896%, while housing prices have risen by more than 2,350%.
> For example, between 1984 and 2021, home prices in Massachusetts rose by 469.89% while incomes increased by 221.10%.
ETC, ETC
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/correlation-inflati...
If the reason 2% inflation exists is to increase money velocity then a fair distribution of money to everyone equally would accomplish exactly that and more.
What about loans? People would still keep their money in banks, which would make circulate in the economy only keeping 10%, just like now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I’m telling you is that normal people would not be doing that. Not in the way that this kind of idea makes it sound like anyway.
Store shelves would be empty and businesses would shutter. There’d be less to buy. Banks would hold on to money instead of lending to productive businesses.
Doesn't that result in scarcity and thus rising prices? A bit of a contradiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slight inflation encourages money to be put towards productive use and punishes hoarding. Choosing a deflationary monetary policy is unconscionable, just think for a moment what the consequences would be.
Is it unconscionable even in the context of having to halve our global emissions in the next six years? I think "postpone buying stuff because your money will be worth more in the future" is exactly what we should be doing at this point in time.
But if your goal is just to blow up the economy, then sure, a deflationary spiral is a potent poison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe leading economists didn't see this coming. Even if they didn't originally, it's been clear now, for decades. This is the system working as intended, making government spending easy and gradually worsening poor's people lives.
Are poor people's lives objectively worse now than they were, say, 40 years ago?