4 ms·

What do you mean by decades? The US has been borrowing money but that hardly translates to printing it. I can definitely see how quantitative easing essentially

What do you mean by decades? The US has been borrowing money but that hardly translates to printing it. I can definitely see how quantitative easing essentially translates to printing a couple of trillion to buy outstanding debt but that has already stopped. By unavoidable I meant that if you hold currency, you are subject to it. Especially if you are holding assets that are appreciating at a slower rate than inflation. Essentially I don't think the wealthy get to loophole or lawyer their way out of inflation the same way they can with taxes. I meant labor scarcity not in the exonomic sense but in the sense of literally running out of people to allocate. I think it's clear that if businesses have to compete for a dwindling pool of workers prices will inevitably rise.

pdonis 10y ago
> What do you mean by decades? The US money supply has been increasing fairly steadily since WW II. > The US has been borrowing money but that hardly translates to printing it. The US has indeed been borrowing money. But it has also been printing it. > I can definitely see how quantitative easing essentially translates to printing a couple of trillion to buy outstanding debt but that has already stopped. QE is just the latest round of printing money. (More precisely three rounds, since there was QE1, QE2, and QE3.) > By unavoidable I meant that if you hold currency, you are subject to it. Only if the supply of currency increases. Why is that unavoidable? > I meant labor scarcity not in the exonomic sense but in the sense of literally running out of people to allocate. I think it's clear that if businesses have to compete for a dwindling pool of workers prices will inevitably rise. No, it's not clear at all. What is clear is that the price of labor (wages and salaries) will increase relative to the price of capital (e.g., interest rates). But that does not mean price levels in general will rise. That depends on how well businesses can substitute capital for labor. In the age of automation, that is usually "pretty well".

pdonis 10y ago

> What do you mean by decades? The US money supply has been increasing fairly steadily since WW II. > The US has been borrowing money but that hardly translates to printing it. The US has indeed been borrowing money. But it has also been printing it. > I can definitely see how quantitative easing essentially translates to printing a couple of trillion to buy outstanding debt but that has already stopped. QE is just the latest round of printing money. (More precisely three rounds, since there was QE1, QE2, and QE3.) > By unavoidable I meant that if you hold currency, you are subject to it. Only if the supply of currency increases. Why is that unavoidable? > I meant labor scarcity not in the exonomic sense but in the sense of literally running out of people to allocate. I think it's clear that if businesses have to compete for a dwindling pool of workers prices will inevitably rise. No, it's not clear at all. What is clear is that the price of labor (wages and salaries) will increase relative to the price of capital (e.g., interest rates). But that does not mean price levels in general will rise. That depends on how well businesses can substitute capital for labor. In the age of automation, that is usually "pretty well".