> by "producers"... Yes, that's how I interpreted it - no disagreement here. > "wages catch up," I probably should have clarified my wording a bit. I think i

> by "producers"... Yes, that's how I interpreted it - no disagreement here. > "wages catch up," I probably should have clarified my wording a bit. I think it's clear that _total_ nominal earnings will increase [1] (because where else will the extra 6% of revenue go?), so the only question is how well distributed those earnings will be. In the short term, perhaps pretty poorly. In the long term, maybe a bit better - but that's a much more complicated subject and beyond what my original comment was trying to imply. I didn't intend to imply that there are _no_ lasting effects from excess inflation, though I can see how it'd come across that way. [1] again, assuming the inflation was caused by increased demand, not a supply shock.