9 ms·

It's less that they won't spend it, and more they won't invest it. As you point out if you can get exposure to global capital growth by keeping your money in ca

It's less that they won't spend it, and more they won't invest it. As you point out if you can get exposure to global capital growth by keeping your money in cash you will do that. This starves the world of risk capital being invested in new projects, the net benefit of which is responsible for capital growth. So nobody invests and technological progress drives to a halt (well maybe governments invest in military technology ands whatso but net investment in risky tech drops).

dpatru 6y ago
I think your assertion that inflation (money printing) is necessary for inflation is wrong and certainly not obvious. Investment necessarily comes from savings. One must not eat some of this year’s corn so as to have next year’s seed. Whether state-forced savings through inflationary bank loans is better than voluntary private savings should be answerable by studying history. Was there better investment historically in countries where the state devalued money in favor of banks, or in countries where money was not devalued?
- pjc50 6y ago
  > One must not eat some of this year’s corn so as to have next year’s seed Corn is a productive asset that generates more corn. Money is not, in and of itself, a productive asset. One of the essential insights of Keynes was that it was possible for real productive capacity (machinery and labour etc) to be idle simply due to lack of liquid money to flow through the system. This was why consumer credit was so crucial to kickstarting modern consumerist economies: like Ford paying workers so they could afford the products, injecting credit allowed consumers to buy items creating jobs to make products, which jobs then allowed consumers to pay off the loans. "Shortage of specie" has been a real economic problem at times; e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/why-was-specie-scarce-in-colonial-economies-an-analysis-of-the-canadian-currency-17961830/23C23D97B868433A64E34DE4F99C0EDF https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-...
splintercell 6y ago
But here's the issue in Keynesian thinking, all savings is investment, it's investment in money. Like any investment, it has a return (which comes from the increased value of money), and risk (if instead of increase value, the value of money is decreased).
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  Yes, but hiding your money in the mattress doesn't create jobs, businesses, innovation, etc. I fail to see the "issue in Keynesian thinking" you're talking about.
  - splintercell 6y ago
    It does. When you hide money under your mattress this is equivalent of you giving your money to all the US dollar investors out there in proportion to the amount of investment they're making. So let's just say if there is a small economy where there are only two investors you and Elon Musk, and you decide to skip investing in any business and hide money under the mattress, then this is equivalent of you giving the money to Elon Musk to invest in his business. How? Because now you're not competing him for raw materials, labor and capital. Then when he built self-driving cars and economic growth happens because of this productive activity, when you take your money out of your mattress it is now worth more , and I'm presuming no new dollars were produced and this time. You can see the effect if a major stockholder of a company decides to not participate in the functioning of the company, this in effect is equivalent of him lending his stocks to the other stockholders. This does not mean that somehow the company is working at a reduced power.
    - Enginerrrd 6y ago
      Ah ok I see your angle now, but I think there's a critical flaw. Your investment into the general market is really only the amount of interest earned on deflation of that amount. Compare this with investing the whole amount into a local bakery. The utility difference is dramatic.
ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
Why wouldn't they invest if potential profitability of investment was higher than that of not spending their money? The problem is, the poor have almost no access and no knowledge of the savings instruments other than cash, so that means that in some way inflation forcibly drains their money to risk investment.
deevolution 6y ago
A deflationary money would incentivize more careful investment and consumption, rather than rampant malinvestment and wasteful consumption which is detrimental to our health and our environment.
centimeter 6y ago
This line of argument also suffers from the Keynesian tendency to view money as a kind of physical constraint. The global capital market is a continuous auction process to allocate the world’s collective productive output at any given time. Inflationary money: people have to place meaningless low-information randomized “bids” (buying spoos) to protect their assets from inflation. This crowds out high-information directed bids. Deflationary money: people without an edge simply refrain from placing “bids” (by saving cash) and each unit of money that does get spent on bids has more power to influence the allocation of capital. In the end, I expect it to come out in the wash. You might actually see more capital invested in stuff like R&D because you have less money blindly pumping up entrenched large-cap valuations through spoos. That depends on how good of a job fundamental analysis funds are doing in today’s world.

dpatru 6y ago

I think your assertion that inflation (money printing) is necessary for inflation is wrong and certainly not obvious. Investment necessarily comes from savings. One must not eat some of this year’s corn so as to have next year’s seed. Whether state-forced savings through inflationary bank loans is better than voluntary private savings should be answerable by studying history. Was there better investment historically in countries where the state devalued money in favor of banks, or in countries where money was not devalued?

pjc50 6y ago
> One must not eat some of this year’s corn so as to have next year’s seed Corn is a productive asset that generates more corn. Money is not, in and of itself, a productive asset. One of the essential insights of Keynes was that it was possible for real productive capacity (machinery and labour etc) to be idle simply due to lack of liquid money to flow through the system. This was why consumer credit was so crucial to kickstarting modern consumerist economies: like Ford paying workers so they could afford the products, injecting credit allowed consumers to buy items creating jobs to make products, which jobs then allowed consumers to pay off the loans. "Shortage of specie" has been a real economic problem at times; e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/why-was-specie-scarce-in-colonial-economies-an-analysis-of-the-canadian-currency-17961830/23C23D97B868433A64E34DE4F99C0EDF https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-...

splintercell 6y ago

But here's the issue in Keynesian thinking, all savings is investment, it's investment in money. Like any investment, it has a return (which comes from the increased value of money), and risk (if instead of increase value, the value of money is decreased).

Enginerrrd 6y ago
Yes, but hiding your money in the mattress doesn't create jobs, businesses, innovation, etc. I fail to see the "issue in Keynesian thinking" you're talking about.
- splintercell 6y ago
  It does. When you hide money under your mattress this is equivalent of you giving your money to all the US dollar investors out there in proportion to the amount of investment they're making. So let's just say if there is a small economy where there are only two investors you and Elon Musk, and you decide to skip investing in any business and hide money under the mattress, then this is equivalent of you giving the money to Elon Musk to invest in his business. How? Because now you're not competing him for raw materials, labor and capital. Then when he built self-driving cars and economic growth happens because of this productive activity, when you take your money out of your mattress it is now worth more , and I'm presuming no new dollars were produced and this time. You can see the effect if a major stockholder of a company decides to not participate in the functioning of the company, this in effect is equivalent of him lending his stocks to the other stockholders. This does not mean that somehow the company is working at a reduced power.
  - Enginerrrd 6y ago
    Ah ok I see your angle now, but I think there's a critical flaw. Your investment into the general market is really only the amount of interest earned on deflation of that amount. Compare this with investing the whole amount into a local bakery. The utility difference is dramatic.

ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago

Why wouldn't they invest if potential profitability of investment was higher than that of not spending their money? The problem is, the poor have almost no access and no knowledge of the savings instruments other than cash, so that means that in some way inflation forcibly drains their money to risk investment.

deevolution 6y ago

A deflationary money would incentivize more careful investment and consumption, rather than rampant malinvestment and wasteful consumption which is detrimental to our health and our environment.

centimeter 6y ago

This line of argument also suffers from the Keynesian tendency to view money as a kind of physical constraint. The global capital market is a continuous auction process to allocate the world’s collective productive output at any given time. Inflationary money: people have to place meaningless low-information randomized “bids” (buying spoos) to protect their assets from inflation. This crowds out high-information directed bids. Deflationary money: people without an edge simply refrain from placing “bids” (by saving cash) and each unit of money that does get spent on bids has more power to influence the allocation of capital. In the end, I expect it to come out in the wash. You might actually see more capital invested in stuff like R&D because you have less money blindly pumping up entrenched large-cap valuations through spoos. That depends on how good of a job fundamental analysis funds are doing in today’s world.