4 ms·

Very little of what you’ve typed out is actually correct. 1 - Creating money out of thin air does not necessarily lead to inflation. How do we know this? Becau

Very little of what you’ve typed out is actually correct. 1 - Creating money out of thin air does not necessarily lead to inflation. How do we know this? Because Europe and the US created a ton of money out of thin air after the financial crisis but were unable to meet their already historically low inflation targets. 2 - Inflation isn’t always hyper inflation. You’ve mentioned the 2-3 countries that have experienced hyper inflation in the past few decades. You’ve ignored the fact that nearly every other country in the world, including the richest countries in the world, have been experiencing inflation every year for several decades. A certain amount of inflation is a good thing. In fact, the only major economy that has experienced deflation for any sustained period of time over the last few decades was Japan, and that was a massive concern. 3 - Inflation helps lending. In fact, deflation on the other hand discouraged lending. Inflation means that in order to retain the value of the money you’ve earned, you have to invest (I.e. lend). In deflationary scenarios, the value of your money goes up simply by virtue of sticking it under the mattress. Hyper inflation is a completely different situation, and the lack of lending there probably has a lot more to do with the fact that there are no economic opportunities in a country whose economy is so bad that it’s suffering from hyper inflation. 4 - How in the world is inflation benefiting people who don’t have money (retired folks without savings, or folks without jobs). Inflation means that whatever money they do get (by begging?) only buys them less than it would have without inflation. You clearly know very little about economics, and your insistence that this all axiomatic indicates you’ve likely not even done a cursory study of macro economics, but are convinced whatever you’ve concluded from certain basic principles is obviously correct, even if it diverges from what the entire academic (and investment and government, for that matter) fields say about those situations.

gonational 7y ago
1. e.g., quantitative easing is literally described as “an unconventional form of monetary policy, it is usually used when inflation is very low or negative” - just because we are not able to meet a specific inflation target does not mean that creating money does not the create inflation… this is some of the most basic monetary economics stuff 2. At what point did I state that inflation is always hyper-inflation? It is perfectly appropriate to bring up hyper-inflation in a conversation about money creation where the money would be created at a rate of no less than $335 billion per month (e.g., UBI of $1,000/mo), which would be the greatest expansion of money supply, in PPP terms(and 25% expansion of M2 per year), in planetary history. 3. Pray tell... if the inflation is due to an increase of the money supply at the inter-banking level, then of course loans are easier to be had. If you already have loans, then of course you are in a great spot when inflation ramps up. If you’re trying to get a loan and the money supply is increasing at 25% per annum, you will likely need to be lent money at a rate higher than what usury laws allow... 4. Never said that either. What I said is that those people are the only ones that will benefit without condition, because inflation does not affect them (other than price stickiness in their assets, if they choose to sell them - they can also thank money expansion for this, one of the known failings of New Keynsianism) Pertaining your last point about the divergence of my thinking from the boundless wisdom of academics... Don’t fall for the college tribe common look no further than Paul Krugman for an example of how Neo Keynesian economics will lead you down a path of endless failure (search for his predictions - as we know, predictions are the best way to test a theory). New Keynesianism economics will go down in history as the single failure that collapsed the Occident into an inescapable swamp of debt. You sound like you’re in junior high or early high school, so you still have time; trust me, do not waste your time studying economics in college. And if you do, at least seek out some place that teaches Austrian School economics at least from a historical perspective (like Booth). Hey there :) no need to reply if you don’t want to; I already know you read it all

gonational 7y ago

1. e.g., quantitative easing is literally described as “an unconventional form of monetary policy, it is usually used when inflation is very low or negative” - just because we are not able to meet a specific inflation target does not mean that creating money does not the create inflation… this is some of the most basic monetary economics stuff 2. At what point did I state that inflation is always hyper-inflation? It is perfectly appropriate to bring up hyper-inflation in a conversation about money creation where the money would be created at a rate of no less than $335 billion per month (e.g., UBI of $1,000/mo), which would be the greatest expansion of money supply, in PPP terms(and 25% expansion of M2 per year), in planetary history. 3. Pray tell... if the inflation is due to an increase of the money supply at the inter-banking level, then of course loans are easier to be had. If you already have loans, then of course you are in a great spot when inflation ramps up. If you’re trying to get a loan and the money supply is increasing at 25% per annum, you will likely need to be lent money at a rate higher than what usury laws allow... 4. Never said that either. What I said is that those people are the only ones that will benefit without condition, because inflation does not affect them (other than price stickiness in their assets, if they choose to sell them - they can also thank money expansion for this, one of the known failings of New Keynsianism) Pertaining your last point about the divergence of my thinking from the boundless wisdom of academics... Don’t fall for the college tribe common look no further than Paul Krugman for an example of how Neo Keynesian economics will lead you down a path of endless failure (search for his predictions - as we know, predictions are the best way to test a theory). New Keynesianism economics will go down in history as the single failure that collapsed the Occident into an inescapable swamp of debt. You sound like you’re in junior high or early high school, so you still have time; trust me, do not waste your time studying economics in college. And if you do, at least seek out some place that teaches Austrian School economics at least from a historical perspective (like Booth). Hey there :) no need to reply if you don’t want to; I already know you read it all