3 ms·

It has an administrative cost that would be better spend elsewhere.

• jfengel 7y ago
  Sure. But that's an overhead, rather than the complete economic collapse that the term "triple digit inflation" conjures in the minds of those who fear single-digit inflation. Hyperinflation like that is different in kind, not just in quantity. Hyperinflation always starts with some kind of economic shock, which the government responds to by borrowing, as is entirely reasonable. ("Printing money" is just a kind of borrowing, from the captive audience of its citizens who have to accept the local currency as payment and have to pay for government services in that currency.) But if they can't fix the original shock, everything just adjusts to that new price point. And if they keep applying the same solution, they get the same results. The hyperinflation thus isn't great, but it's not really the problem, and you wouldn't make the problem better by doing away with the hyperinflation. You'd have the same bad economy with different numbers on the money. It's better not to have to do that to the money, but better still to get to the root of the matter -- which is challenging under the best of circumstances, and the circumstances that produce hyperinflation are usually not the best.
  • epx 7y ago
    It is a BIG overhead. I have lived in such a situation, so as far as first-hand experience is worth... I am allergic to any defense or downplay of inflation because there is a lot of people here that see "advantages" in it. Mostly politicians that magically solved all cash flow problems of their governments by delaying payment for a couple months. They like to call this "economic development".