3 ms·

> widows, orphans, those living in poverty or on a fixed income have no way to save This has got to be the laziest rebuttal - think of the orphans! Those livi

by verall 5y ago

> widows, orphans, those living in poverty or on a fixed income have no way to save This has got to be the laziest rebuttal - think of the orphans! Those living in poverty, definitionally, have less money than the not-impoverished. A deflationary currency gives value proportional to whomever is holding it. There is no incentive to loan money, as holding this deflationary currency is risk free growth. Certainly, the government printing fiat could direct those funds in undesirable or corrupt ways, but this is possible whether the fiat currency is deflating or inflating. A currency that is always deflating will be subject to the tyranny of wealth holders, who now have no incentive to put any of that wealth back into the economy, absent a wealth tax or something. Fiat already has momentum, it can purchase goods and services, which can be used to create value. It can pay taxes. It does not also need to be self-compounding through deflation.

ephbit 5y ago
It appears to me as though "magically" the wealthy always seem to manage to store their wealth in some form that isn't devalued by inflation (real-estate, ...) whereas the poorer people are, the fewer possibilities to do something similar they have (in the traditional money system). So systematically, inflation hits the poorer people more. Yes, a deflationary currency would maybe benefit the already wealthy more than the poorer, but somehow I don't need to hesitate which one (inflationary, deflationary) I'd rather choose.
- verall 5y ago
  I completely agree, systematically, inflation his poorer people more. This is not a prerequisite for inflationary money systems in theory, but it is the state of Earth's inflationary money systems. A deflationary currency does not maybe benefit the already wealthy, it directly imparts "real value" proportional to held currency. If you have ideas for a deflationary system that solves this, through wealth taxes or something, I am all ears. > somehow I don't need to hesitate which one (inflationary, deflationary) I'd rather choose Because relative to most people, you are wealthy! How are young people supposed to find work in a deflationary system?
lowkey 5y ago
> This has got to be the laziest rebuttal - think of the orphans! I'm sorry you felt my argument to be lazy. Allow me to elaborate. Widows and orphans is a common trope in finance that refers to the most vulnerable members of society, those without the pricing power to keep up with inflation. Typically it means those on a fixed income such as pensioners. These 'widows and orphans' are the worst hit by inflation since high earners can pressure employers for a raise or switch jobs for more pay while the idle rich can keep their assets in inflation-resistant holdings. Pensioners suffer disproportionately - that was my point.
- verall 5y ago
  Orphans are children and wards of the state. They are not laboring (I hope). The government could print fiat money and give it to them, and their wealth would still grow with inflation. With deflation, their 0 dollars do not increase, and it is impossible for them to find jobs when the grow up. The modern monetary system, which is inflationary, is obviously biased towards wealth holders. This does not imply that a deflationary system would better help the poor and downtrodden. Deflation imparts wealth directly to holders of the currency, directly proportional to the quantity of currency held. Money velocity goes towards 0 as the idle rich lose all incentive to do anything but hold it and watch their purchasing power increase relative to everyone less rich.
  - lowkey 5y ago
    Again, ‘widows and orphans’ is a well established term when referring to the impact of inflation. It generally refers to those on fixed incomes - i.e. those without the pricing power to fight for increases in income to combat inflation. You seem to be stuck on the word orphans, let’s use ‘those on a fixed income’ instead. If you can get past the word orphans, may I ask you to address the core point of my argument?
    - verall 5y ago
      Your core argument has, from my view, morphed from "inflation hurts the poor and downtrodden" to "inflation hurts those with a fixed income". My questions are: Why must widows or orphans or anyone have a fixed income? What is the problem with the government providing subsistence incomes indexed to inflation and letting wealtholders fortunes get inflated away? How does deflation, which proportionally rewards holders of currency, help those with a fixed income more than inflationary handouts?

by verall 5y ago

ephbit 5y ago

It appears to me as though "magically" the wealthy always seem to manage to store their wealth in some form that isn't devalued by inflation (real-estate, ...) whereas the poorer people are, the fewer possibilities to do something similar they have (in the traditional money system). So systematically, inflation hits the poorer people more. Yes, a deflationary currency would maybe benefit the already wealthy more than the poorer, but somehow I don't need to hesitate which one (inflationary, deflationary) I'd rather choose.

verall 5y ago
I completely agree, systematically, inflation his poorer people more. This is not a prerequisite for inflationary money systems in theory, but it is the state of Earth's inflationary money systems. A deflationary currency does not maybe benefit the already wealthy, it directly imparts "real value" proportional to held currency. If you have ideas for a deflationary system that solves this, through wealth taxes or something, I am all ears. > somehow I don't need to hesitate which one (inflationary, deflationary) I'd rather choose Because relative to most people, you are wealthy! How are young people supposed to find work in a deflationary system?

lowkey 5y ago

> This has got to be the laziest rebuttal - think of the orphans! I'm sorry you felt my argument to be lazy. Allow me to elaborate. Widows and orphans is a common trope in finance that refers to the most vulnerable members of society, those without the pricing power to keep up with inflation. Typically it means those on a fixed income such as pensioners. These 'widows and orphans' are the worst hit by inflation since high earners can pressure employers for a raise or switch jobs for more pay while the idle rich can keep their assets in inflation-resistant holdings. Pensioners suffer disproportionately - that was my point.

verall 5y ago
Orphans are children and wards of the state. They are not laboring (I hope). The government could print fiat money and give it to them, and their wealth would still grow with inflation. With deflation, their 0 dollars do not increase, and it is impossible for them to find jobs when the grow up. The modern monetary system, which is inflationary, is obviously biased towards wealth holders. This does not imply that a deflationary system would better help the poor and downtrodden. Deflation imparts wealth directly to holders of the currency, directly proportional to the quantity of currency held. Money velocity goes towards 0 as the idle rich lose all incentive to do anything but hold it and watch their purchasing power increase relative to everyone less rich.
- lowkey 5y ago
  Again, ‘widows and orphans’ is a well established term when referring to the impact of inflation. It generally refers to those on fixed incomes - i.e. those without the pricing power to fight for increases in income to combat inflation. You seem to be stuck on the word orphans, let’s use ‘those on a fixed income’ instead. If you can get past the word orphans, may I ask you to address the core point of my argument?
  - verall 5y ago
    Your core argument has, from my view, morphed from "inflation hurts the poor and downtrodden" to "inflation hurts those with a fixed income". My questions are: Why must widows or orphans or anyone have a fixed income? What is the problem with the government providing subsistence incomes indexed to inflation and letting wealtholders fortunes get inflated away? How does deflation, which proportionally rewards holders of currency, help those with a fixed income more than inflationary handouts?