> 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 g

> 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.