this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
190 points (92.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

28365 readers
686 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It's becoming really annoying.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago (8 children)

I never understood why inflation was a good thing. I understand why it happens. But I can't wrap my head around the value of your money going down being good.

Maybe so you actually spend it. But then it also keeps you from saving up for bigger purchases or having some emergency money tucked away.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Because inflation applies to both the amounts you owe and the ammounts you save. It's kinda baffling to see multiple people here arguing that inflation encourages hoarding or not spending. Specifically it does the opposite. Money you save loses value, so you need to invest in something that returns value faster than inflation rather than sit on a pile of cash. Money you borrow also loses value, so the money you pay back later is less than the amount you borrowed. If you pay the same amount each month for your mortgage for 25 years and inflation is 2% each year the last payment should be half as valuable as the first (edit: about two thirds, actually. Maths!), so you're encouraged to buy on credit.

More importantly, governments have tools to control inflation, so they can intervene and course correct when sudden imbalances happen. The anarchocapitalist fantasy where the market balances itself is extremely dumb, government intervention is absolutely needed, and tools to regulate runaway effects are what keeps all your savings from evaporating every so often.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If you pay the same amount each month for your mortgage for 25 years and inflation is 2% each year the last payment should be half as valuable as the first (edit: about two thirds, actually. Maths!), so you’re encouraged to buy on credit.

But this is only meaningful if your income is also going up, right? Otherwise you're still getting fucked by inflation. You're paying the same percentage of your income towards that mortgage but all your other expenses are going up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Absolutely. Inflation isn't just inflation, different things move at different rates, and that includes salaries.

But that's why you want collective bargaining and an ongoing conversation about salaries, including periodic revisions of minimum wage regulations. We shouldn't let oligarchs tell us that inflation is what degrades salaries, it's the mismatch between salary growth and inflation. Inflation should be part of the calculation and salaries should be negotiated on a regular basis and regulated to prevent the system from breaking at the bottom.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

In general, there's pros and cons to both. Iirc inflation is considered to be a bit better than deflation because deflation is linked to economic crisis, high unemployment, low productivity, and low sales. Inflation isn't much better but having a very small amount of inflation is more manageable and has some benefits.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure it's "good" on its own, it's maybe more that the alternative (deflation) is worse. A steady value might be preferable but I'm not sure that's realistic, so a small amount of inflation is probably the best you can hope for? 🤷

[–] HiddenLychee 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The idea that a little inflation is better than none comes from the thought that money should be changing hands as much as possible, and if money kept its value people would be incentivized to save all their money and keep it to themselves, and that would remove it from the economy. But if the value of that cash goes away people will want to invest it in something that might not lose its value, like a service.

Idk that's just the way it's always been explained around me I'm not some money jockey

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Problem with money is that money only have value when people are willing to exchange money for goods and services.

The moment that exchange stops, value of money plummets.

A very good analogy I saw in Charles Stross’ “Neptune’s brood” is that money is a concrete representation of an abstract debt. Exchange materializes that debt into a trade, which is where valuation happens. I’m pretty sure I just made a lot of economists justifiably angry though

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

I guess a little inflation is good,
to prevent all money from ending up in a single party's hands.

However that's the only upside I could think of, other then that I fully agree with you.

Central/regional banks "printing" money, through bonds and fractional banking, is blatant stealing from people who worked / saved in the past imo. Since it leads to inflation / devaluation of the currency.

[–] graham1 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

to prevent all money from ending up in a single party’s hands.

I beg to differ.

Example: suppose you own property, gold, a business, or something else with tangible value. When inflation causes cash to decrease in value, your assets are safe. They have intrinsic value.

Example: suppose you're living a lifestyle where you can't afford assets like that. Maybe even living paycheck to paycheck. You make the same money, and you can buy less with each paycheck. You can't start buying assets when money keeps getting tighter.

I think it's pretty simple to see inflation only hurts the have-nots, while others are protected by the value of their accumulated assets.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Throughout the 1800s, the us saw increasingly more severe and more frequent economic boom and bust cycles. This helps the wealthy as they are the ones who can buy up all the assets during the busts, and the common man gets fucked. This all culminated with the great depression. Its something like 20 recessions of 15% or more retractions between and 1930.

When the fed was given teeth to actually control the fractional reserve system., we've seen constant inflation, but the number and severity of economic recessions has gone way down.

We've seen 1 retraction over 15% since 1940. And that was because of COVID lockdowns.

This small, controlled inflation is great for the regular joe because it creates stability. And it was all going well until deregulation during the 80s.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Inflation incentives you to use the money. If there is no inflation or worse, deflation, you money is worth more tomorrow than it is today so you're better off holding back on all purchases until later when your money is worth more, market moves slow or not at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

If the amount of money was small and finite, one person could hoard most of the entire supply of money, and because the rest of society can't use their currency as easily to trade, there's less value in the utility of it. The entire purpose of cash is that it's a universal store of value so that you don't have to trade goods for goods and instead trade cash for goods. Nobody would use cash if they can't ever have enough to purchase what they need in the increments they need.

Disclaimer: this is just my intuition; I am not an economist