Is deflation actually bad?

[Anonymous No.52928761]

I feel like I'm being gaslighted by "economists" but I want to check my biases. Is deflation actually a bad thing? A lot of the arguments against it don't seem to hold up upon a look. Like the idea that people would just hold onto their money as if that's a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.52928774]

>>52928761
Deflation creates money hoarding and money hoarding is bad for the economy as people consume less, knowing that itll be cheaper to buy it tomorrow. That creates more deflation and create a negative feedback loop. you can look at japan to see why this is bad

[Anonymous No.52928781]

>>52928761

Deflation is good.

Hyperdeflation is even better.

[Anonymous No.52928808]

I don't see the issue either, though I accept that ideal monetary policy has neither inflation nor deflation on a permanent basis. Where $1=$1 forever.

[Anonymous No.52928819]

>>52928774
Japan is the third largest economy on the planet, has the highest amount of automation and has one of the highest standards of living in the history of humanity. I get the lost decades meme but when you look under the hood it doesn't seem that bad. I'm pretty sure the average Japanese person can still afford rent in Tokyo even. Also implicit with your statement is the idea that more consumption is a good thing in and of itself.
>>52928781
Are there any historical examples of hyperdeflation?

[Anonymous No.52928825]

>>52928808
What is the ideal then? Is there another way of thought off of this axis that I haven't conceived of?

[Anonymous No.52928833]

>>52928761
It's bad for large corporations and the politicians and economists that they control. It's good for normal people

[Anonymous No.52928870]

>>52928761
>Is deflation actually a bad thing?
Yes, because it contracts the economy. Mild inflation leads to investment, innovation, productivity growth, and rising living standards.

[Anonymous No.52928880]

>>52928825
The ideal is price stability. Naturally prices will fluctuate due to supply and demand but over time prices should be stable if there hasn't been a technological breakthru that jusifies a lower average price for a good or service.

[Anonymous No.52928893]

>>52928870
How is "mild" defined? How much is too much and how much is too little?

[Anonymous No.52928895]

>>52928833
Just wait until the normal people start losing their job/lower salary

[Anonymous No.52928896]

>>52928870
>Mild inflation leads to investment, innovation, productivity growth, and rising living standards.
LIES! You support financial exploitation to the extent that the goyim don't revolt!

[Anonymous No.52928912]

>>52928896
Are you literally retarded? How is what I said not uncontroversially true?

[Anonymous No.52929007]

>>52928912
Mild inflation is a mild expansion of the money supply and the mild loss of purchasing power, where the Federal Reserve gets to counterfeit and you are the one being exploited, simple as. Learn to Austrian Economics retard.

[Anonymous No.52929020]

>>52929007
So you are definitely retarded, then. Didn't even address the substance of my post.

[Anonymous No.52929022]

If deflation is so bad why was the U.S. economy deflationary during the 19th century during it's greatest period of growth?

[Anonymous No.52929057]

>>52929022
>What is the Second Industrial Revolution?

[Anonymous No.52929104]

>>52929057
You are being dismissive as if the industrial revolution and productivity increases are done forever. Also if anything doesn't the occurrence of the 2nd industrial revolution happening under such conditions go directly against all the fear mongering about deflation in this thread? Wouldn't capital investment do a deflationary death spiral if the inflationist were correct? In other words wouldn't an event such as the 2nd ir be killed due to unfavorable conditions?

[Anonymous No.52929105]

>>52929020
If you don't understand that money (currency) supply being inflated at all is bad, then fuck you and the horse that you rode in on.

[Anonymous No.52929117]

>>52929020
your mild inflation serves the purpose of destruction of savings, which leads to preference of short term consumption over long term investment == malinvestmen. ask yourself: can the pet rock exist in a deflationary world. if your answer is yes you're retarded, and if your answer is no you just found out why mild inflation is slowly crushing the soul of man and destroying our civilisation.

[Anonymous No.52929132]

>>52929104
Industrial revolutions always lead to productivity gains, which is always deflationary.

>>52929117
>which leads to preference of short term consumption over long term investment
Wrong. If real gains can be had simply by holding dollars, people will hoard cash instead of investing it in productive enterprises.

[Anonymous No.52929139]

>>52929105
i'm thinking dangerously based and correct

[Anonymous No.52929159]

>>52929132
Hoarding money is simply taking it out of supply and is therefore deflationary, which is a good thing for everyone else, baka.

[Anonymous No.52929190]

>>52928761
Do you want your wages to go down while your mortgage remains the same?

[Anonymous No.52929200]

>>52929132
>productive enterprises.
yes, that sounds real smart until you realise that those productive enterprises produce pet rocks and other useless trinkets. frankly I don't see how wasting human life time and precious resources for useless garbage can be considered 'productive' at all. pic related.

[Anonymous No.52929216]

>>52929190
You think you are clever but the historical data proves that you are just baffled by bullshit.

[Anonymous No.52929229]

>>52929117

>your mild inflation serves the purpose of destruction of savings
empirically wrong
>which leads to preference of short term consumption over long term investment == malinvestmen
empirically wrong
>ask yourself: can the pet rock exist in a deflationary world
yes
>if your answer is yes you're retarded
no, I would be correct. The Pet Rock was created in August 1975 during deflationary period in the middle of oil shocks
>and if your answer is no you just found out why mild inflation is slowly crushing the soul of man and destroying our civilisation
doesn't need a response

[Anonymous No.52929231]

>>52929200
I don't disagree on a philosophical level. The quest for eternal economic growth is destroying the planet. However, there is no question that inflation encourages investment and hence economic advancement. A lower-growth world is possible but it would require dismantling capitalism, which is a system in which an idle minority lives off capital appreciation instead of working.

[Anonymous No.52929244]

>>52929216
And deflation would make this better because...?

[Anonymous No.52929253]

>>52929229
>somebody doesn't understand understand the background of his own beliefs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uKnd6IEiO0

[Anonymous No.52929301]

>>52929200
Behold a turd! This turd was produced by a living being, therefore living beings have no value as they produce unwanted turds.

Anti-Natilist Detected.

>>52929244
Deflation means that people will save up before they make a purchase. Loans are more expensive to engage in and that is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.52929318]

Also as a general idea wouldn't it be better if capitalism focused more on heavy industry, material extraction vs. the creation of pet rocks? Hasn't there been a drop off in the rate of productivity increases and arguably technological growth since the 1970s roughly coinciding with the creation of a fiat monetary system?

[Anonymous No.52929326]

>>52929231
the only thing inflation encourages is spending, which looks like investment, but since it's only driven by the need to escape a depreciating asset has no direction and will thus result in increased risk and useless consumption. (you can easily see that in the fact that you will have less savings to cushion any kind of downturn, while simultaneously having more margarita mixers.)

other than that: capitalism is great and eternal economic growth makes perfectly sense.

[Anonymous No.52929342]

>>52928880

>Naturally prices will fluctuate due to supply and demand but over time prices should be stable if there hasn't been a technological breakthru that jusifies a lower average price for a good or service
over time prices do not remain the same, they increase (i.e. "mild inflation"). Population increase puts constant pressure on demand. And these "technological breakthroughs" happen all the time even incrementally. A can of coca cola will fluctuate in price but over time it gradually increaes from 25 cents to a dollar.

>Mild inflation is a mild expansion of the money supply and the mild loss of purchasing power,
by definition this is correct but a meaningless statement without context
>where the Federal Reserve gets to counterfeit and you are the one being exploited, simple as.
wow, okay, that's really the context? That the concept of mild inflation is a deep conspiracy by the US federal reserve to exploit the masses? Okay.
>Learn to Austrian Economics retard.
your boo boo branch of economics has produced almost nothing of value except Hayek

[Anonymous No.52929370]

>>52929301
>Deflation means that people will save up before they make a purchase.
Not sure that is always feasible. Even without inflation, it takes many years to save up for something like, say, a house.

[Anonymous No.52929375]

>>52929342
Haven't prices of goods decreased in real terms since the industrial revolution began? Even with a constant doubling of human population? For example in real terms a meal is far cheaper in labor/wage hours than in the 1700s. Wouldn't an increase in population/extractive demand naturally lead to investment/technological/productivity increases thus overall driving price down due to increased production and economies of scale? What I'm really trying to get say is, "why can't my can of coke go down to 1 cent?"

[Anonymous No.52929386]

>>52929253
I have an economics degree from UCLA, which I did not need to draw on because everything you said in your original post has no support from real world data and can be easily shown as false with a 5 second google search

[Anonymous No.52929402]

>>52929301
mate it's very simple to understand:
savings on their own are have value because they are a safe-guard against risk. they enable you to expend less work when need arises. any kind of investment should improve you life enough to outweigh the safety of having saving. instead, because of 'mild inflation, you find yourself in a culture where savings are wasted on a constant stream of sugar water and sneakers - and the result is garbage dumps full of items not valued enough to be cared for ... essentially wasted effort.

[Anonymous No.52929410]

>>52929326
>the only thing inflation encourages is spending, which looks like investment, but since it's only driven by the need to escape a depreciating asset has no direction and will thus result in increased risk and useless consumption.
Wrong. Inflation mainly encourages investment. Most of the great leaps forward technologically were not 'sure things', they were risky and benefited from the kind of disincentive to hoard cash associated with inflation.

>other than that: capitalism is great and eternal economic growth makes perfectly sense.
I assume you are being sarcastic here.

[Anonymous No.52929426]

>>52929386
>I was indoctrinated with a useless ideology that has no predictive power whatsoever at UCLA ...
cool. and I am a talking dog btw.

[Anonymous No.52929433]

>>52929342
Prices were stable in the USA for over a hundred years and we even had deflation in the late 1800s. The value of the Federal Reserve Note has seen massive wealth extraction from the public over the last 100 years and you have consumed the propaganda that seeks to justify it.

>That the concept of mild inflation is a deep conspiracy by the US federal reserve to exploit the masses? Okay.
Yep, that it, that's the joke that you do not understand

[Anonymous No.52929440]

>>52929410
Where did the investment come from during the "Great Deflation" of the 2nd industrial revolution then? If deflation is so bad at drying up investment how did the industrial base expand during that period in which inflation was virtually non existent in both the U.K. and U.S.? Note that the latter also had to partially rebuild capital infrastructure after the Civil War.

[Anonymous No.52929495]

>>52929440
>Where did the investment come from during the "Great Deflation" of the 2nd industrial revolution then?
The investment happened in the period before.

>If deflation is so bad at drying up investment how did the industrial base expand during that period in which inflation was virtually non existent in both the U.K. and U.S.?
Deflation will naturally occur when productivity grows faster than money supply.

[Anonymous No.52929496]

>>52929433
>>52929440
You do realize that the Second Industrial Revolution was not exactly a great time for the average person, right? Deflation is documented to have caused people a bunch of problems during that time period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Party_(United_States)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_silver

[Anonymous No.52929535]

>>52929402
Well I think that the Fun Police should help curb that frivolity.

>>52929496
Who said that having a good time is the most desirable thing?

Sorry anons, got to sleep now so no more replies.

[Anonymous No.52929542]

Deflation means the economy gets smaller. Inflation means the economy gets bigger. no, you cannot change my mind

[Anonymous No.52929549]

>>52929375

>Haven't prices of goods decreased in real terms since the industrial revolution began? Even with a constant doubling of human population? For example in real terms a meal is far cheaper in labor/wage hours than in the 1700s
very interesting point. Hard to calculate that far back in real terms without good data (which is hard to find pre 1920) for not only goods but wage inflation. Just from what I can find I would say no. Wage inflation tends to lag goods inflation and generally price of goods increase faster than wages (especially recently, but if we are talking back to 1700s this all goes out the window)
>Wouldn't an increase in population/extractive demand naturally lead to investment/technological/productivity increases thus overall driving price down due to increased production and economies of scale? What I'm really trying to get say is, "why can't my can of coke go down to 1 cent?"
The marginal effect on demand of an additional body is guaranteed (of course maybe the new baby does not like coke but this is just an example) but increased tech capabilities is not guaranteed or even likely. Nor is an increase in investment. I might be a bit confused by your question..

[Anonymous No.52929578]

>>52929426
>I was indoctrinated with a useless ideology that has no predictive power whatsoever at UCLA ...
that is rich coming from a guy who spouts austrian school nonsense and learned his econ from youtube
>cool. and I am a talking dog btw.
I don't believe you

[Anonymous No.52929615]

>>52929549
In other words why doesn't competition lead to a near post scarcity of goods and services? What would it take for capitalism to achieve such a state? Do we simply need a 4th or 5th industrial revolution? A deflationary monetary system? A more inflationary one? State directed investment in heavy industry and/or automation? I'm in good faith trying to figure out why there is still so much scarcity sitting 200 years after the invention of the steam engine.

[Anonymous No.52929655]

>>52929410
pic related is the investment you speak of. production of something that, after an initial outburst of novelty, is so little valued that we can't be even bothered to fish it out of the ocean.
your increased 'investment' was essentially just burning resources for the sake of needless consumption.

as for risk: risk must be controlled. the fact that the reward of certain endeavours outweighs the potential downside, does not mean that needlessly accumulating risk is a good idea.

>I assume you are being sarcastic here.
why would I be sarcastic? capitalism is a great algorithm for resource allocation. it makes us all richer.
(and eternal economic growth is possible because value is subjective and the human mind ingenious)

[Anonymous No.52929667]

>>52929433
I am not sure what you are advocating for, do you want stirctly enforced price stability (no deflation/inflation)? The original topic was "mild inflation" so do you want no price movement at all? Or price movement is allowed but should not deviate from a fixed value (i.e. can of coke may go up or down 10 cents but will always be around a dollar forever)? Or something else entirely?

[Anonymous No.52929669]

>>52929535
"Lol money isn't important"
-Some guy who has never had money problems

[Anonymous No.52929780]

>>52929655
Consumption is not investment. Investment increases efficiency, which decreases the resource consumption needed to produce the same value.

>why would I be sarcastic? capitalism is a great algorithm for resource allocation. it makes us all richer.
You can't be serious. Your posts are logically incoherent. Capitalism can't exist without eternal growth, which requires inflationary monetary policy.

[Anonymous No.52929794]

>>52929615
most people point to things like population increase (which goes without saying has exploded) and longer lifespans. But I mean quality of life has markedly improved, I think that's undeniable unless you are one of those weirdos who insisted the serfs had it better. Phone calls and facetime on your iphone in an instant vs. letter correspondence on horseback spanning weeks if not months sure seems like it could be post scarcity. So does the fact that you can eat guava fruit, susi or tiramisu, etc. despite living thousands of miles away from Japan, Italy, or any tropical nation

possibly related is the seatbelt/airbags story - the idea that fatal car accidents didn't decrease after the invention of seatbelts/airbags (I can't remember which one it was, this is just a pop culture story I've heard referenced so take it with a grain of salt, it might not even be true I am too lazy to investigate) because people just overcompensated by driving more recklessly. Who knows, maybe it is just human nature

[Anonymous No.52929830]

>>52929578
>spouts austrian school nonsense
m8, I'm over austrian economics. I have become my own rabbit hole. I'm sure i might somewhat amusing to a guy like you, but honestly ... I do not care much for your opinion. You buy into a discipline that tries to obfuscate its lack of predictive power with (not really) complicated math that is also prone to error (because the formulas are often times not robust and the practitioners don't care about how the underlying math works.) ... and all of this is usually used to justify the status quo because it gives everything the flair of 'scientificness' while the truth is that the current mainstream take on economics is no better than technical analysis.

>I don't believe you
yeah, and I don't believe you either.

[Anonymous No.52929844]

>>52929794
I don't disagree that the overall standard of living has improved. I'm trying to figure out why after 200 years of industrial development they haven't improved even moreso? I'm not asking about the flying car meme per say but the general future that didn't come that that meme makes reference too. Sure we have Iphones but no launch loop. We have the internet but I still have to do wage labor for food and housing. It seems like capitalism has fallen short getting across the finish line of automation, robotics and higher energy yields. My main question is why and does inflation have anything to do with it? Surely massive amounts of capital wasted on Funko pops has some correlation with a lack of more automated capital machinery?

[Anonymous No.52929892]

>>52928761
With a sound monetary policy, prices would deflate as technology advancements would lower the price to create goods. People would be able to save more money and thus purchase new goods. Unfortunately the jew’s fiat and fractional reserve banking systems require constant expansion of the money the supply to function. As inflation is simply an increase in money supply, there will always be inflation in this system. There was actually slight decrease in the cost of goods for the entire 19th Century. Since deflation causes the asset owning class to lose money at the expense of regular people, politicians would never allow.

[Anonymous No.52929934]

>>52929830
the issue isn't with austrian school, or even economics. Frankly, I confused you with another poster who was writing about austrian economics. The issue is that your original post (the pet rock one) made claims that were so blatantly false and easily fact checked that it raised concern. And instead of expanding on or explaining those claims in subsequent replies you've instead opted for insults and ad hominem attacks. It's clear that you have issues with mainstream macroeconomics, and that's fine. I don't really care for your assumptions regarding my education but that's not really a big deal either. The claims you've made in your post do not require a degree in economics to disprove. All they require is an internet connection and looking at real world data. It's honestly a good thing that you are skeptical in nature and even better that you are curious and wanting to learn more about things. But if you are going to be going down rabbit holes constantly you have to know not to be easily misled

[Anonymous No.52929994]

>>52928761
Didn't you just make this thread like 2 days ago?
Deflation isn't bad. Economists can suck my cock. The reason (((economists))) don't like it is because it discourages spending/lending which makes it more difficult to grow an economy. They don't give a fuck about someone's buying power.
>>52928896
Show me an example where a country went from hard money to fiat and things got better because of it.

[Anonymous No.52930003]

>>52929994
I meant to reply to:
>>52928912

[Anonymous No.52930034]

>>52929994
No someone else made this thread the other day but I didn't think it came to a satisfactory endpoint.

[Anonymous No.52930036]

>>52929780
>Consumption is not investment. Investment increases efficiency,
ok, I try getting my point across a little differently:

OK, I am sure you will agree with me that savings generally have a value to human beings. They enable us to cope with hardship better (less risk) and open up opportunity (investment).

When you make a decision on any purchase you actually weigh what you value more: The thing you are giving away or the thing you are receiving. Usually it's the thing you receive because otherwise you wouldn't do the purchase.

Prices serve as a signal to quantise the value we collectively assign to goods and services ( what I mean here is is that you can easily compare how others value something vs your own valuation...)

With controlled inflation you fuck with this price signalling and even though the actual probability of you valuing a pet rock more than whatever it is sold for is only minuscule, what is happening is that we are playing an iterative game and the numbers add up over time - and what we find is that the market for crap is suddenly much larger, and thus our tech tree adapts to producing more crap, which leads to us buying even more crap because crap got cheaper and we find ourselves in a feedback loop where we spend all our productive capacity on crap and have nothing left to safe-guard us against the next horrible thing that is sure to happen and will inevitably expose a lot of people to a lot of suffering that otherwise would not have happened.
(because that's how the world works).

and that is why what you believe is investment is actually malinvestment in consumerism.

[Anonymous No.52930062]

>>52930036
To play devils advocate since I haven't had a direct answer on the heavy industry subject in this thread, wouldn't too much investment in heavy industry instead of light industry and services lead to its own form of malinvestment? Like the Chinese building useless buildings or the Soviets not investing enough in light industrial goods production?

[Anonymous No.52930071]

>>52929844

I mean there's not really a great answer, but most likely the tech just hasn't gotten there yet if we are talking about things like flying cars, launch loop, living like a fat Wall-E person, etc... is inflation to blame..? I don't really see the connection, like inflation being the cause as in excess productive capacity from population and tech gains is being eaten up by inflation? It seems a bit silly but I don't want to totally discount the idea.
>It seems like capitalism has fallen short getting across the finish line of automation, robotics and higher energy yields.
first of all I thought we were talking about inflation and money supply.. if you're asking if capitalism is the issue then there is a more definitive answer (personally): no. First of all "fallen short" here means falling short of some subjective ideal utopia that was more than likely unrealistic in the first place. And while we can only really look at inflation temporally (growth, productivity during periods of inflation and deflation throughout history, taking into account other influences at the time), we can directly compare capitalism with other systems over the same time period and see that it trumps the others by a wide margin on things like tech innovation, quality of life improvement, etc. But here especially you have to take other influecnes like geopolitics into account (a caveat that pro commies love to use when pro capitalists make the comparison). Whether it's a valid point or not depends on who you ask

[Anonymous No.52930088]

What a shame it would be if man could buy a meal with $1.00.

[Anonymous No.52930140]

Good replys. Started writing an essay in my economics class about inflation yesterday and enjoyed the read. Keep up the self educating bizraelis

[Anonymous No.52930167]

>>52929934
m8, everything cool, but: no the things aren't easily disproved. the only thing would be the pet rock, and .. the pet rock was indeed created in 1975 - and honestly the reason I mentioned it was to name the most useless trinket I could conceive of. I didn't actually think too much about the economic situation that surrounded its creation, but I just looked it up and (I hope I'm not getting that wrong here ... but ...) the Oil shock was in 1973 and is given to last from 73 to 74 on the website of the federal reserve. As for 75: if memory serves me right that was actually stagflation.

as for the other stuff: I stand by what I said. Inflation serves the purpose of destruction of savings because everyone and their mom is afraid of liquidity traps (I might be using the word wrong here, but essentially a lack of liquidity caused by hoarding cash) and thus lack of economic activity. And yes, I get that something something unemployment rate and I-forgot-his-name-curve-it's-7-am-here-and-haven't-slept, but the employment is essentially a function of increased money flow.

I also stand to the idea that having less savings means more consumption because investments often times have a threshold and loans increase risk. (and I am sure you disagree with me here, but if you refer to real life data: you will find that you have no way of comparing it to 'what-would-have-been' ... and yes I undertand that you also disagree with taht, but the law of large numbers is a thing. you can suck it.)

[Anonymous No.52930251]

>>52929117
>your mild inflation serves the purpose of destruction of savings
Inflation only fucks you if you don't know your way around the industry, with tools like SpoolFi inflations shouldn't be up for discussion at this point.

[Anonymous No.52930348]

>>52930062
apparently 4chan thinks my initial reply is spam ... so I guess: yes.

[Anonymous No.52930383]

>>52930167

>honestly the reason I mentioned it was to name the most useless trinket I could conceive of
yeah, I figured from your other posts that's what you were going for. And the oil shock is very relevant, hard to say with a stragiht face that the 70s were a "normal" time for inflation rates. Inflation was (compared to now) very high then but specifically the pet rock was created during a hard deflationary period (from mid teens percent down to about five I believe) immediately followed by high inflation, then followed by Volcker. Again, it would great to strip out politics when looking at it but it's almost impossible.
>Inflation serves the purpose of destruction of savings because everyone and their mom is afraid of liquidity traps (I might be using the word wrong here, but essentially a lack of liquidity caused by hoarding cash) and thus lack of economic activity.
this is more characteristic of high inflation or unknown inflation expectations though. Mild inflation that is consistent would not be conducive to hoarding cash.
>And yes, I get that something something unemployment rate and I-forgot-his-name-curve-it's-7-am-here-and-haven't-slept, but the employment is essentially a function of increased money flow
you're talking about the Phillips Curve (relation between unemployment and inflation). Personally I think it's not that reliable (definitely has come into scrutiny in few years) along with a lot of (maybe even a majority of) economists. Even my fed indoctrination program at UCLA (as you so kindly put it) basically said it's full of shit. May surprise you since you're used to only seeing "economists" who work for the white house or have a tv show on the money channel but econ is a growing field with different schools of thought that love to tear the shit out of each other.

[Anonymous No.52930433]

>>52928774
But people will not stop spending for things they actually need like food, shelter and clothing. They might put off on buying the latest bing bing wahoo phone toy, but is this really a bad thing? Maybe society doesn't need the population spending all of their money and instead saving for necessary purchases later. I experienced this myself when I stopped keeping my cash in fiat (outside of emergency savings) and switched to just crypto and pms

[Anonymous No.52930451]

>>52930167
>having less savings means more consumption because investments often times have a threshold and loans increase risk. (and I am sure you disagree with me here,
I mean I agree, I am not sure why you would think I wouldn't. Less savings implicitly means more consumption because, I mean, what else are you going to do with the money? You either spend it or save it.. not sure what you mean by the second part though
>but if you refer to real life data: you will find that you have no way of comparing it to 'what-would-have-been' ... and yes I undertand that you also disagree with taht, but the law of large numbers is a thing. you can suck it.)
you obviously can't compare over the same time period with different conditions (well you could by creating a model but personally I would be hesitant with whatever findings you get from that) but you can compare different over different time periods with similar savings rates (filter for similar geopolitical conditiosn, location, etc.) and consumption and adjust your findings. But what would you even be comparing? If less savings --> more consumption? I mean we both think that that's implicitly true just from a zero sum standpoint. If you are arguing that inflation --> less savings --> more consumption, that has more to do with the delta (rate of change) of consumption habits in regards to income/savings, i.e. how sticky is that consumption? And what we really are debating in this thread I think is that first connection, if inflation really does lead to less savings, all things considered

[Anonymous No.52930543]

gonna burn a doink and head to bed, some good banter mixeed with discussion, I take back the mean stuff I said about austrian school I did not mean it. There is a lot of relevant econ stuff that just couldn't be expanded on and I have written enough paragraphs already. If you're an interested anon with time on your hands look into some of these topics (no particular order): income elasticity of demand, solow growth model, human capital, inflation expectations, marginalism.
I am not endorsing any of these ideas, rather I think they are relevant and take away from them what you will.

[Anonymous No.52930841]

>>52930383
>but specifically the pet rock was created during a hard deflationary period
somehow I feel like you have some very specific knowledge about the pet rock, but seriously I feel like whether the pet rock was a child of deflation or inflation could be argued a lot just based on how you phrased that - and I am simply not knowledgable enough to do that ... nor am I willing.

>this is more characteristic of high inflation or unknown inflation expectations though.
yes, that very aspect was the reason why I concluded that I'm using the word wrong when I looked it up.

>Mild inflation that is consistent would not be conducive to hoarding cash.
yes, I get why you're saying that, but I was actually trying to argue that mild inflation serves to dissuade saving ... so yes I used the word liquidity trap wrong ... it's more like ... drying up of liquidity ... (or not even that ... just maximising liquidity ... because in the end the people who justify their policies with these theories have a hard on for circulating money, because it looks like it drives economic activity because of gdp ... and ... basically Goodhart's Law)

anyway ... I am having a hard time expressing my thoughts. Not just because of a lack of jargon, but also because english isn't my forté.

1/2

[Anonymous No.52930863]

>>52930383

>Even my fed indoctrination program at UCLA (as you so kindly put it)
you misunderstood me ... when I called you something something horrible and indoctrinated (I'm sorry for being rude, anon. You're an ok guy.), I didn't want to accuse you of following any particular narrative ... I rather wanted to express that the field of economics (as it is taught in official institutions) has little merit in its claim to truth, and that people get duped into believing in a very complex system of beliefs that borders on religion. I also made the experience that people who studied economics tend to be rather arrogant about their beliefs (and I get it ... economics is a field where people on the internet have a lot of opinion based on very little knowledge ... but then again ... it's not like economics has a lot more to offer than opinions to begin with ...)

>May surprise you since you're used to only seeing "economists" who work for the white house or have a tv show on the money channel but econ is a growing field with different schools of thought that love to tear the shit out of each other.
yeah I know. A lot of opinions and very little predictive power.

>>52930543
n8, m8. twas fun. I'm sorry I was rude to you.

[Anonymous No.52930871]

>>52928761
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap

[Anonymous No.52930873]

>>52928774
>Deflation creates money hoarding and money hoarding is bad for the economy as people consume less
You literally copied and pasted the vanilla argument. Kys
Also businesses are NOT entitled to money. If they go under because people didn't like their product/service, good. That's literally how it should be. Inflation on the other hand does NOTHING good. All it does is fuck people's buying power into poverty levels

[Anonymous No.52930936]

>>52929318
Yes. Check wtfhappenedin1971 dot com

>>52929386
> He paid to get brainwashed

[Anonymous No.52930956]

>>52929229
>this retard thinks inflation doesn't fuck the masses asses
Stupid as fuck

[Anonymous No.52930998]

>>52928761
Cool it off with the antisemitism ok?

We must have inflation to destroy people's savings otherwise they would be able to buy land and houses instead of iPhone 54 and fidget spinners

[Anonymous No.52932015]

>>52928895
>Prices and wages go up with inflation while savings decay
Vs
>Prices and wages go down while purchasing power of savings increases
Wow it's a good thing

[Anonymous No.52932056]

If you think production + consumption is the end-all, deflation is bad

Basically only kikes and their shabbos goyim want inflation and they'll make up any lies necessary to keep it going

[Anonymous No.52932122]

>>52928761
Deflation is definitely bad when your economic model is based on year over year growth of GDP and your money is actually debt.

[Anonymous No.52932168]

>>52928761
Yes, deflation is much worse than inflation since it diminishes growth and capital investments by incentivizing money hoarding.

In case of high deflation, a deflationary spiral can completely destroy the productive capability of an economy.

The misconception of biz retards, crypto bros and others who think they know anything because they watched a few youtube videos, is that they mistake the money itself with wealth and that's why they think that seeing the number in their screen increase by hoarding useless bits means that crypto is a good form of money (while in the real world nobody uses it after 10 years and the only attempt to make it legal tender in El Salvador failed massively).
But money is only a medium of exchange and of measuring wealth, which is factories, technology, services etc

The second point is that with fiat and proper monetary policy inflation will be low and almost inconsequential to savings.
And cases of high inflation can be put under control.

While you cannot control a deflationary spiral of a currency that has fixed quantity by design.

[Anonymous No.52932195]

>>52928893
2 % yearly is what most countries aim for

[Anonymous No.52932233]

>>52930936
>Check wtfhappenedin1971 dot com
for laughs

[Anonymous No.52933015]

>>52932168
>and almost inconsequential to savings.
yes, losing 1/5th of your buying power in 10 years is inconsequential. You're totally not forced to take on risk and essentially gamble with your retirement funds because of that.

anon, do you sometimes pause for a moment and re-evaluate the things you believe? may I ask you how the effect of increased investment is supposed to work if 2% are inconsequential to money-holders? like why would they move their funds if they had no reason to?

[Anonymous No.52933029]

Deflation kicks ass, I want hamburgers to cost 25 cents again

[Anonymous No.52933047]

>>52932122
I wonder who we blame for that

[Anonymous No.52933128]

>>52928761
No any Austrian economics advocate knows that deflation is fantastic for consumers..anybody that says otherwise is retarded / corrupt Keynesian that doesn’t understand money and promotes money printing and inflating away the debt. They also think creating unemployment is deflationary.. how retarded is that if you think about it… how the funk can less people in the workforce making goods and providing services be deflationary when it lowers supply.. Keynesian]S are retarded faggots ..

[Anonymous No.52933244]

bump I'm just reading replies and studying the subject right now. I want to keep this discussion up.

[Anonymous No.52933278]

>>52928761
Oh no, please save us from the horrors of a declining cost of living. Could you imagine if you went to the store tomorrow and things cost less than they did yesterday?

[Anonymous No.52933302]

>>52928819
The Great Depression is a pretty good example

[Anonymous No.52933384]

>>52929132
why wouldnt someone still seek return when the dollars returned to them will be more valuable than the ones lent out?

[Anonymous No.52933432]

>>52933244
real interest rates [2-5% over real inflation rate ] encourage people to save . They invest a great portion of that money into capital increasing productivity for economy which in turn reduces prices. the hoarding myth is a yet another retarded fallacy created by Keynesians .. sadly Keynesian dominate education system ..ask yourself this: is it just Bernanke got a Nobel prize for creating the greatest ever amount of unbacked money printing in human history that only benefited boomer asset holders and is now bleed through to creating 15% + price increases annually .. also the fact they lie and manipulate inflation stats [cost of housing] is a huge tell the whole Keynesian theory is corrupt to core

[Anonymous No.52933443]

>>52928761
It's bad for (((them))) because it discourages consumption.

[Anonymous No.52933455]

>>52933015
Lol, Vlad seething.