5 ms·

Nonsense. Sure, deflationary shocks can be calamitous, like the Great Depression or the GFC. But steady deflation over time is logically the natural and good ou

Nonsense. Sure, deflationary shocks can be calamitous, like the Great Depression or the GFC. But steady deflation over time is logically the natural and good outcome of improvement over time—as technology advances and we get better at producing things, they should get cheaper, on average. Instead, our savings are buying us LESS over time, so that government can buy votes, fund wars, bail out defense contractors, pharma companies, financial institutions, and other cronies, etc. Inflation via the printing press, which is now just considered by many a normal phenomenon, is actually legalized wealth transfer from the savings of ordinary citizens into the coffers of giant government bureaucracies and the large corporations that feed off them.

mrow84 4y ago
Goods getting cheaper broadly means that supply is going up relative to demand - we call this deflation. If the supply of money goes up relative to demand then we call that inflation. It seems like you are conflating the two categories.
simonh 4y ago
Devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing, hence all the many government schemes to incentivise small scale productive investment. Here in the UK that's through tax free consumer savings accounts like ISAs, but also pensions. Savings that are invested do work in the economy fund businesses, promote economic activity and aid job and wealth creation. Stuffed mattresses are a boat anchor on the economy. Having said that, deflation isn't always the awful spectre of doom it's sometimes made out do be, especially if it's due to technological improvements or increased supply. As the article we're all notionally discussing explains, inflation in a reasonably well managed economy is generally differential and reflects shifts in the structure of the economy.
- dinom 4y ago
  Lol, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31539114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31539114 you say "I don’t want to devalue their savings" yet above you say "Devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing". Either your thinking has changed or, you're trying to cause confusion or, maybe confused yourself, or are trolling. At this point I suspect I may even be chatting with an ELIZA... so what else is there for me to say? Think whatever you want. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- dinom 4y ago
  What is "in-the-mattress" savings exactly... besides one person's savings that another wants to spend differently? Who should be the ultimate judge of how capital is saved and invested? You? The government? What about the person who actually did the saving? Taken to it's logical conclusion, saying that "devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing" sounds a lot like "let's soak the rich" to me.... and it's a very slippery road to serfdom.
  - simonh 4y ago
    In-the-matress savings are money that is not invested, such as cash stuffed in a matress. This is the opposite of soaking the rich. The well-off generally have a very large proportion of their wealth invested in productive economic activities, with returns well above inflation.
    - dinom 4y ago
      You haven't convinced me. After all... what about short-term bills? Are they considered savings or investment? What about FX accounts? What about operating capital? In other words... what is "not invested"? An axiomatic definition is imperative... not turtles all the way down. Savings and investment are largely synonymous so I stand by my initial statement. How can one expect to buy a house if they're precluded from putting savings "in-the-mattress"? I'm not suggesting they'd be better or worse off using leverage... I'm saying it is solely for them to determine since they're the ones who are most familiar with their own circumstances. If someone enjoys wiping their rear with $100 bills that's up to them. As I can tell, the best definition for "in-the-mattress savings" is capital that is deemed a bad investment by any/every one except the person who managed to create the savings itself. Your argument leads to a slippery slope... what would stop me from taking your assets because they don't fit my definition of "investment"?
      - simonh 4y ago
        Short term bills are serving a useful economic function and pay interest, because they are useful to people. When I was saving for a deposit on a house I kept the money in savings accounts and ISAs, again those serve a useful economic function and pay interest. The basic fact is that money is a financial instrument created and managed by a government for their own purposes. They create it and therefore obviously they control the supply of it. It's value is therefore based on the degree to which people trust that government to manage it effectively, as with a bond or equity or any other financial instrument.
- nagasadhu 4y ago
  That's basically saying u can't hold on to ur hard earned money after paying taxes. Give it to the government or some pension firm. And depend on the government and incompetent regulators to take care of you in your old age.

mrow84 4y ago

Goods getting cheaper broadly means that supply is going up relative to demand - we call this deflation. If the supply of money goes up relative to demand then we call that inflation. It seems like you are conflating the two categories.

simonh 4y ago

Devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing, hence all the many government schemes to incentivise small scale productive investment. Here in the UK that's through tax free consumer savings accounts like ISAs, but also pensions. Savings that are invested do work in the economy fund businesses, promote economic activity and aid job and wealth creation. Stuffed mattresses are a boat anchor on the economy. Having said that, deflation isn't always the awful spectre of doom it's sometimes made out do be, especially if it's due to technological improvements or increased supply. As the article we're all notionally discussing explains, inflation in a reasonably well managed economy is generally differential and reflects shifts in the structure of the economy.

dinom 4y ago
Lol, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31539114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31539114 you say "I don’t want to devalue their savings" yet above you say "Devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing". Either your thinking has changed or, you're trying to cause confusion or, maybe confused yourself, or are trolling. At this point I suspect I may even be chatting with an ELIZA... so what else is there for me to say? Think whatever you want. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
dinom 4y ago
What is "in-the-mattress" savings exactly... besides one person's savings that another wants to spend differently? Who should be the ultimate judge of how capital is saved and invested? You? The government? What about the person who actually did the saving? Taken to it's logical conclusion, saying that "devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing" sounds a lot like "let's soak the rich" to me.... and it's a very slippery road to serfdom.
- simonh 4y ago
  In-the-matress savings are money that is not invested, such as cash stuffed in a matress. This is the opposite of soaking the rich. The well-off generally have a very large proportion of their wealth invested in productive economic activities, with returns well above inflation.
  - dinom 4y ago
    You haven't convinced me. After all... what about short-term bills? Are they considered savings or investment? What about FX accounts? What about operating capital? In other words... what is "not invested"? An axiomatic definition is imperative... not turtles all the way down. Savings and investment are largely synonymous so I stand by my initial statement. How can one expect to buy a house if they're precluded from putting savings "in-the-mattress"? I'm not suggesting they'd be better or worse off using leverage... I'm saying it is solely for them to determine since they're the ones who are most familiar with their own circumstances. If someone enjoys wiping their rear with $100 bills that's up to them. As I can tell, the best definition for "in-the-mattress savings" is capital that is deemed a bad investment by any/every one except the person who managed to create the savings itself. Your argument leads to a slippery slope... what would stop me from taking your assets because they don't fit my definition of "investment"?
    - simonh 4y ago
      Short term bills are serving a useful economic function and pay interest, because they are useful to people. When I was saving for a deposit on a house I kept the money in savings accounts and ISAs, again those serve a useful economic function and pay interest. The basic fact is that money is a financial instrument created and managed by a government for their own purposes. They create it and therefore obviously they control the supply of it. It's value is therefore based on the degree to which people trust that government to manage it effectively, as with a bond or equity or any other financial instrument.
nagasadhu 4y ago
That's basically saying u can't hold on to ur hard earned money after paying taxes. Give it to the government or some pension firm. And depend on the government and incompetent regulators to take care of you in your old age.