2 ms·
My rationale is simply that more dollars to go around means that one dollar is worth less. Simple logic, rather than fancy economics, I guess.
by trey-jones 5y ago
My rationale is simply that more dollars to go around means that one dollar is worth less. Simple logic, rather than fancy economics, I guess.
- blacksqr 5y agoYou explicitly blamed distribution of trillions to the populace, which I think is the conclusion the article's author wanted people to come to. Your response illustrates the likelihood that the article is a stealth attack on government stimulus to the non-rich, to deflect the possibility of more straightforward solutions, like curtailing stimulus to the rich.
- machinebun 5y ago> My rationale is simply that more dollars to go around means that one dollar is worth less. Simple logic, rather than fancy economics, I guess. You're looking at the total supply (which is true in the long term, since those dollars have to be spent eventually). However, inflation in the short term has much more to do with velocity and actual spending - if all of that money just sits in bank accounts, there will be no inflation. So looking at the money supply in isolation will tell you nothing about the actual inflation. It's about what's happening to that money.