this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
210 points (96.9% liked)

World News

39463 readers
3202 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/51182148

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cley_faye 30 points 5 days ago (2 children)

If you think your money will worth more tomorrow, then you are less likely to invest/spend them.

I see this argument being thrown around a lot. How does it work when a fair share of people are not doing investment at all, and are unable to spend the bare minimum to live, to begin with?

I ask this because the argument of "people will spend less" only works with people that spend extra money on unnecessary things, which is becoming less and less of a thing.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Because no matter what proportion of the population they are, many many businesses are kept afloat by discretionary spending. Be that TVs, laptops, clothing, grooming, beauty products, heath+fitness, cars, holidays, tourism, travel, even house moves.

These are all things that can be 'put off a little while' if there's serious prospect of your money going further. Which, as OP says, slows the economy and makes deflation worse.. The thing that suffers in the meantime is cash flow in these businesses (and dependent businesses) and an extended period of slow trade with no prospect of it ending would see many of them go to the wall. See: covid. Had governments not acted it would have naturally led to deflation. That's not the reason they acted though, they pumped money into the economy because long before deflation/inflation would have been a worry bankruptcy would have cut deep into thousands of regular 'good' businesses. (So they over inflated and then we had globally crap price inflation but still the risk of an economy wide shut down was that bad..)

[–] hark 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Technology is inherently deflationary in that superior versions come out for the same or even less money all the time yet people still regularly buy TVs, phones, laptops, etc.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 2 points 3 days ago

True, they're poor examples. But discretionary spending, on the whole, is not on depreciating items.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago

Humans are not rational actors. We never have been and we never will be. There are different gradations of “necessary”.