4 ms·
Having we been giving much printed money to people who need more food? Most people in the western world aren't likely to buy more food, just because they have
by jopsen 6y ago
Having we been giving much printed money to people who need more food?
Most people in the western world aren't likely to buy more food, just because they have more money.
Not saying, we won't see inflation, who knows, but I doubt we'll see it in household items.
- imtringued 6y agoYeah exactly, cyberpsybin's comment reads as "now that people have enough money to buy food they ate all of it". No, the problem is that there isn't enough food in the first place. The rising price rewards farmers who produce additional food. You just need to run a stimulus program for farmers so that they can expand and mechanize their farms to increase yields. I wish people would look at physical reality first and then look where physical reality takes the market rather than looking at the market and ignoring what physical reality looks like.
- herbst 6y agoFor about a year now i buy food in bulk. Mostly because its really nice to have everything at home. However i likely buy more food now too as i never experience the 'nothing nice to eat better go to sleep' situations any more.
- voisin 6y agoMaybe not buy food directly for personal consumption but buying commodities is a possibility that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (like GameStop!). When all financial assets increase to all time highs and commodities don’t then speculators push them up to eliminate cross asset price disparities.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> Most people in the western world aren't likely to buy more food, just because they have more money. If you have more money and you use it to buy more food, that's not inflation. Inflation is when you have more money and you use it to buy the same amount of food. Give people more money, and you will see the price of everything rise without seeing the amount of stuff they buy go up.
- onion2k 6y agoGive people more money, and you will see the price of everything rise without seeing the amount of stuff they buy go up. In the specific case of COVID in the UK, people have been given money to replace the money they would have earned. The people don't have extra money. The system hasn't changed except for the fact that the money is coming from the government instead of the their employer.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoDid you respond in the wrong place? "More money" is a premise of "Most people in the western world aren't likely to buy more food, just because they have more money."
- onion2k 6y agoYes, and my reply was to clarify that in some parts of the world COVID hasn't resulted in people having more money despite the government 'money printing machine' going in to overdrive.
- makomk 6y agoPeople have been given money to replace the amount they would've earned, but the work they would've done hasn't happened. All of the goods and services they would've produced no longer exist. The government tried to make up for the fact that large amounts of the real economy were shuttered by printing money, with predictable results.
- jopsen 6y ago> with predictable results Care to elaborate, because *if* there is going to be a fallout from these massive stimulus packages, it certainly doesn't feel predictable to me. Indeed, we all like to think doomsday scenario, and covid-19 have trained our brains to think the unlikely is likely.. but it's not even obvious there is going to be a fallout from all this stimulus.
- swiley 6y agoWouldn't it be great if we did that instead of bailing out American Airlines and propping up overpriced real estate? That's the issue here: not only is stuff you need getting more expensive because of the expanding money supply but the new money is being used directly to cause it rather than helping the individuals that need help.