4 ms·
I'm not really sure the "dollar worth less" framing is super helpful, but maybe I'm wrong. I think it's a little better to specify in what context we're talking
by notJim 5y ago
I'm not really sure the "dollar worth less" framing is super helpful, but maybe I'm wrong. I think it's a little better to specify in what context we're talking about.
Actual inflation is generally low aside from short-term issues, but "asset inflation" if you want to call it that is high. I think the most important thing in terms of day-to-day existence is CPI-type measures that reflect your ability to consume things with money. If you can't do that anymore, then it becomes a real problem for everyday life, as people are unable to afford things they need. But that's not that situation we're in.
The situation we're in is that assets are over-valued across the board, including in the stock market and housing. I think the risk here is that once you're in this situation, getting out of it is really hard. If we allow housing prices to fall (by raising rates, for example), what happens to all the people who are now underwater on their mortgages? If value is erased from the stock market, a lot of people are going to be left holding the bag. Is there a plausible way we can get out of this situation?
- arrosenberg 5y ago> Is there a plausible way we can get out of this situation? Yes, tax the hell out of the wealthy in order to reduce their total share of the money supply (which is driving asset inflation), shield the middle class, and provide better housing, social services and benefits to the working poor. Home prices would settle because supply would go up and the range of bids on a given property would be more egalitarian. If we are responsible with the new revenues (we won't be) we would also destroy about $5-7T of what's collected to remove it from the overall supply to prevent reoccurrence.