> If Scrooge McDuck has $5M in his mattress, his inflation-adjusted net worth increased by $100,000. He can retire and spend the rest of his life living very c

> If Scrooge McDuck has $5M in his mattress, his inflation-adjusted net worth increased by $100,000. He can retire and spend the rest of his life living very comfortably on the equivalent of $90k/year, and despite him doing no work, despite him incurring no financial risk, somehow every year he'll get a little wealthier. He'll have to part with some of his wealth whenever buying something, and eventually it will still run out. It's not a stock that produces dividends, you have to spend the principal to take advantage of the value growth. Think of it as owning a $5M home that you have to sell a part of each time you buy something, even though the house increases in value. > How is that possible? Who's paying for his life of luxury? Joe Sixpack. Deflation is quite literally a tax by capital on labor. Joe Sixpack's salary would increase in value by default. As in, by default salaries would track GDP growth, how does that look like a tax to you? Companies will have to actively tell people "we're going to reduce your salary", which helps workers in the negotiation. > How is that possible? Who's paying for his life of luxury? Joe Sixpack. Or whoever is after the currency, just like whoever wants to buy a house pays for equity value growth. > "I think some of that GDP growth created by workers should go to anyone with money." AFAIK this is universally understood to be a Bad Thing (tm) by virtually everyone. As opposed to "I think some of that GDP growth created by workers should go to banks so that they can charge interest on everyone else and make easy profits."