3 ms·

> Technically he was talking about short term high inflation, but there is no mechanistic reason why this would be false for long-term low inflation I was with

by CPLX 5y ago

> Technically he was talking about short term high inflation, but there is no mechanistic reason why this would be false for long-term low inflation I was with you until this point. There are absolutely reasons why there is a difference. Time is directional and irreversible and human life is exceedingly finite. Thus there will always be a higher value placed on money you get today versus money you get in the future. Given that money, itself, is not a productive or useful asset at rest, inflation at a rate consistent with the gradual increase of aggregate wealth is a natural and healthy outcome of the system.

pjc50 5y ago
"In the long run we are all dead." -- also Keynes
dnautics 5y ago
> Thus there will always be a higher value placed on money you get today versus money you get in the future Yeah, that SHOULD be the case because "money you get in the future" should be subject to existential risk. If you want to artificially "mobilize money" then you are going to get all sorts of fucked up things like environmental destruction in the service of thoughtless consumption ("spending on crappy shit from china is good for the economy!!1"), ponzi schemes, incentivised malinvestment, and cheating labor out of their wages: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-higher-inflation/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi... "it’s really, really hard to cut nominal wages. Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis." Think about it this way: If we did not inflate the money, increased productivity (e.g. through technological efficiency gains) would result in everyone reaping the benefits, capitalism would be a rising tide that lifts all boats. Instead, we funnel those societal gains to the most privileged in our society, i.e. bankers and people who are good at writing government grants and good at getting awarded contracts.

by CPLX 5y ago

pjc50 5y ago

"In the long run we are all dead." -- also Keynes

dnautics 5y ago

> Thus there will always be a higher value placed on money you get today versus money you get in the future Yeah, that SHOULD be the case because "money you get in the future" should be subject to existential risk. If you want to artificially "mobilize money" then you are going to get all sorts of fucked up things like environmental destruction in the service of thoughtless consumption ("spending on crappy shit from china is good for the economy!!1"), ponzi schemes, incentivised malinvestment, and cheating labor out of their wages: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-higher-inflation/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi... "it’s really, really hard to cut nominal wages. Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis." Think about it this way: If we did not inflate the money, increased productivity (e.g. through technological efficiency gains) would result in everyone reaping the benefits, capitalism would be a rising tide that lifts all boats. Instead, we funnel those societal gains to the most privileged in our society, i.e. bankers and people who are good at writing government grants and good at getting awarded contracts.