> But what about for the majority of the population that holds little to no financial assets? Inflation that is higher than the interest rate on savings is es

> But what about for the majority of the population that holds little to no financial assets? Inflation that is higher than the interest rate on savings is essentially a hidden tax, one that incentivizes people to not save their money because the time value of it changes, leading toward it being more valuable sooner rather than later. This will definitely impact the middle class more than anyone else: the price of goods will rise while salaries remain fairly stagnant (so-called "stagflation"). Essentially, all of our meager savings are going to be pillaged in order to > Weren't those decades also characterized by unprecedented economic growth and increase in standards of living? Consider this: dollars can be thought of as representing favours owed, in a prioritizing sense (i.e. if I want you to do something for me, to the exclusion of other offers, I'll offer you more money). In an inflationary environment with rising costs, we'll all have less money in terms of purchasing power as time goes along - essentially, we end up owing each other fewer favours in the future - so it behooves us to call them in earlier rather than later. This _should_ stimulate people into buying a lot of things and therefore boost business (and GDP) as people all start essentially forcing each other to work harder, hire more help, etc. but may backfire as people see it as a reason to start finding inflation-proof investment options. Some will invest in hard currencies, some in commodities or real estate, but of course, some in simple consumer goods. Either way, it stands to reason that if Napier is right, everything's about to get more expensive, though at the same time we'll probably also see a lot of consumer credit. Weird.