3 ms·

Inflation is useful and is not stealing if the rate of inflation is communicated and stable. If the government decided to suddenly devalue it's currency for the

Inflation is useful and is not stealing if the rate of inflation is communicated and stable. If the government decided to suddenly devalue it's currency for the sole purpose of reducing it's debt burden then it could be construed as stealing. If the government communicated that it will devalue its currency at a fixed 2% every year it's not stealing because individuals are able to account for it. Why is inflation useful as opposed to deflation? If money were to be gaining in value rather than losing value people would be incentivized to do a few things 1. Hold on to money because it would increase in value over time 2. Not make purchases because the object being purchased will require fewer units of money over time. 3. Not invest in starting new businesses because the investor would be losing out on the guaranteed income from holding onto the money along with the fact that whatever the business sells will be worth fewer units of money over time 4. Disincentivize individuals to take out loans to start businesses because the value of the loan will increase in price over time. However when money loses value over time there are a few nice properties 1. The burden of debt decreases over time 2. People are incentivized to invest their money into business You seem to believe that secondary markets (namely wall street) are bad things. The secondary market is a good thing because it gives individuals that initially put up capital for new businesses to be created a way to realize the return on their investment without having to wait for dividends. This is good because people that are successful in choosing which businesses should have capital (because their product is valuable) and which businesses don't deserve that capital will be able to take their money and invest it into other businesses which would presumably create products that add value to the world. Of course there are bad things such as advisors charging excessive fees to ignorant people, corporate raiders, fraudsters, etc.

dnautics 10y ago
let's reframe your statements: > 1. Hold on to money because it would increase in value over time "disincentivize poor people from saving" > 2. Not make purchases because the object being purchased will require fewer units of money over time. "push poor people into consuming" > 3. Not invest in starting new businesses because the investor would be losing out on the guaranteed income from holding onto the money along with the fact that whatever the business sells will be worth fewer units of money over time "Benefit rich people who seek to invest in venture capital" > 4. Disincentivize individuals to take out loans to start businesses because the value of the loan will increase in price over time. "make it easier for people to sell themselves into debt slavery" > 1. The burden of debt decreases over time "make it cheaper for leveraged investments, de facto restricted to a small class of investors, to exist" > 2. People are incentivized to invest their money into business "push middle class people into subsidizing risky behavior by capitalists" The reason why I am reframing your statements in this way is because a general policy of inflation affects everyone, and by and large the rich (good for them!) already have ways to escape, if not profit from, the generalized effects. The rest of us do not. There are additional problems to the "perpetual growth mentality", that I don't want to bring up too heavily, like incentivising continued erosion of the environment, natural resource depletion and less conservation. > You seem to believe that secondary markets (namely wall street) are bad things. No. Secondary markets are great. What is not great is forcing people to participate, as in, socializing risk while while allowing the rich and politically connected to enjoy the fruits of the casino capitalism with golden parachutes and fail-upwards scenarios. The traditional left/liberal argument is that we need to add regulation to fix that and protect the investment of general public, which, being anti-state-socialist, I am vehemently against (besides which the long history of added regulations seems to only have the effect of ensnaring more of the middle class into the system of socializing risk and paying off the privileged). The only solution is to not have these insidious little pushes that force the general public into these dangerous activities. Inflation is like proto-matter from star trek II. You think you know what you're doing, harnessing this praeternatural force that can bend and shape society to what you think are "good things", but the cost is you're really making things unstable because of the fallacy of the unseen.
- friedman23 10y ago
  >"disincentivize poor people from saving" You can save by investing in the stock market or bonds which is what everyone should be doing >"push poor people into consuming" You can save (investing is saving) >"Benefit rich people who seek to invest in venture capital" The majority of people starting businesses aren't rich venture capitalists and more venture capitalists fail more often than succeed. >"make it easier for people to sell themselves into debt slavery" Getting into debt is definitely slavery, I'm sure the millions of people that have used debt to their benefit agree with you. I'm done reading your comment, it's filled with unreasoned hyperbolic language that doesn't reflect the truth. Look inward and realize that at some point in your life you became radicalized to the point where you can't even think rationally

dnautics 10y ago

let's reframe your statements: > 1. Hold on to money because it would increase in value over time "disincentivize poor people from saving" > 2. Not make purchases because the object being purchased will require fewer units of money over time. "push poor people into consuming" > 3. Not invest in starting new businesses because the investor would be losing out on the guaranteed income from holding onto the money along with the fact that whatever the business sells will be worth fewer units of money over time "Benefit rich people who seek to invest in venture capital" > 4. Disincentivize individuals to take out loans to start businesses because the value of the loan will increase in price over time. "make it easier for people to sell themselves into debt slavery" > 1. The burden of debt decreases over time "make it cheaper for leveraged investments, de facto restricted to a small class of investors, to exist" > 2. People are incentivized to invest their money into business "push middle class people into subsidizing risky behavior by capitalists" The reason why I am reframing your statements in this way is because a general policy of inflation affects everyone, and by and large the rich (good for them!) already have ways to escape, if not profit from, the generalized effects. The rest of us do not. There are additional problems to the "perpetual growth mentality", that I don't want to bring up too heavily, like incentivising continued erosion of the environment, natural resource depletion and less conservation. > You seem to believe that secondary markets (namely wall street) are bad things. No. Secondary markets are great. What is not great is forcing people to participate, as in, socializing risk while while allowing the rich and politically connected to enjoy the fruits of the casino capitalism with golden parachutes and fail-upwards scenarios. The traditional left/liberal argument is that we need to add regulation to fix that and protect the investment of general public, which, being anti-state-socialist, I am vehemently against (besides which the long history of added regulations seems to only have the effect of ensnaring more of the middle class into the system of socializing risk and paying off the privileged). The only solution is to not have these insidious little pushes that force the general public into these dangerous activities. Inflation is like proto-matter from star trek II. You think you know what you're doing, harnessing this praeternatural force that can bend and shape society to what you think are "good things", but the cost is you're really making things unstable because of the fallacy of the unseen.

friedman23 10y ago
>"disincentivize poor people from saving" You can save by investing in the stock market or bonds which is what everyone should be doing >"push poor people into consuming" You can save (investing is saving) >"Benefit rich people who seek to invest in venture capital" The majority of people starting businesses aren't rich venture capitalists and more venture capitalists fail more often than succeed. >"make it easier for people to sell themselves into debt slavery" Getting into debt is definitely slavery, I'm sure the millions of people that have used debt to their benefit agree with you. I'm done reading your comment, it's filled with unreasoned hyperbolic language that doesn't reflect the truth. Look inward and realize that at some point in your life you became radicalized to the point where you can't even think rationally