3 ms·

> I heard a stat on a podcast that said the vast majority (maybe 2/3?) was unspent, so it seems unlikely this is a major driver. Having unspent money ripe to b

> I heard a stat on a podcast that said the vast majority (maybe 2/3?) was unspent, so it seems unlikely this is a major driver. Having unspent money ripe to be spent seems like it should be considered a significant driver. Spending a little bit more here and a little bit more there is seen as no big deal when your bank account is flush.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
camgunz 4y ago
> Spending a little bit more here and a little bit more there is seen as no big deal when your bank account is flush. Wouldn't this just be spending the stimulus money? What I'm saying is that most of it hasn't been spent, so it can't count as that much "extra money in the mix" as most people think.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > Wouldn't this just be spending the stimulus money? Most likely it is being spent. Slowly. Like you said, some of it has been spent already. It is unlikely that stopped. It just hasn't been blown all at once. > What I'm saying is that most of it hasn't been spent Me too, more or less. If it were already spent then bank accounts would be tight and people wouldn't be able to spend more. However, if they're only dipping in a dollar or two at a time, they can both spend more and leave their bank accounts almost untouched. At least for a while. Give it enough years and it may eventually erode to nothing, but in the short term you don't have to spend much of it to pay more at the store. Inflation is a little higher than usual, but not that high in the grand scheme of things.
  - camgunz 4y ago
    Oh yeah definitely. I think the thing I heard was that rather than like, functioning like a tent pole on inflation it was more like just a small contributing factor, but will be for years to come. I kind of stuck on it here because I think the politics have been "this is what happens when you give people hundreds of billions of dollars", but I don't really think the evidence supports that argument.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > "this is what happens when you give people hundreds of billions of dollars" Well, in fairness, at the onset of the pandemic there was a looming fear of deflation and we weren't very far from that actually happening. All that stimulus money was poured into the economy by the central bank specifically to create inflation, per inflation target mandates. The idea is not unwarranted. But also not that simple. Where the money ends up is equally important. You could 'print' trillions of dollars, but if you gave it all to Bezos, not much would change. He'd just sit on. Maybe inflate some assets like real estate, but he's not going to drive up the price of bread. Bread relies on purchases from the masses who don't have more money to spend in that scenario. If you distributed that money out to everyone, however, then they each do have more money for bread. Then you can start to see inflation come of it as people start to compete with their extra cash in hand.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

camgunz 4y ago

> Spending a little bit more here and a little bit more there is seen as no big deal when your bank account is flush. Wouldn't this just be spending the stimulus money? What I'm saying is that most of it hasn't been spent, so it can't count as that much "extra money in the mix" as most people think.

randomdata 4y ago
> Wouldn't this just be spending the stimulus money? Most likely it is being spent. Slowly. Like you said, some of it has been spent already. It is unlikely that stopped. It just hasn't been blown all at once. > What I'm saying is that most of it hasn't been spent Me too, more or less. If it were already spent then bank accounts would be tight and people wouldn't be able to spend more. However, if they're only dipping in a dollar or two at a time, they can both spend more and leave their bank accounts almost untouched. At least for a while. Give it enough years and it may eventually erode to nothing, but in the short term you don't have to spend much of it to pay more at the store. Inflation is a little higher than usual, but not that high in the grand scheme of things.
- camgunz 4y ago
  Oh yeah definitely. I think the thing I heard was that rather than like, functioning like a tent pole on inflation it was more like just a small contributing factor, but will be for years to come. I kind of stuck on it here because I think the politics have been "this is what happens when you give people hundreds of billions of dollars", but I don't really think the evidence supports that argument.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > "this is what happens when you give people hundreds of billions of dollars" Well, in fairness, at the onset of the pandemic there was a looming fear of deflation and we weren't very far from that actually happening. All that stimulus money was poured into the economy by the central bank specifically to create inflation, per inflation target mandates. The idea is not unwarranted. But also not that simple. Where the money ends up is equally important. You could 'print' trillions of dollars, but if you gave it all to Bezos, not much would change. He'd just sit on. Maybe inflate some assets like real estate, but he's not going to drive up the price of bread. Bread relies on purchases from the masses who don't have more money to spend in that scenario. If you distributed that money out to everyone, however, then they each do have more money for bread. Then you can start to see inflation come of it as people start to compete with their extra cash in hand.