3 ms·

>Yeah the guy that has a paid-for house and zero stocks loses out asset-wise. That's a weird-ass balance of assets though. What I'm trying to tell you is that

>Yeah the guy that has a paid-for house and zero stocks loses out asset-wise. That's a weird-ass balance of assets though. What I'm trying to tell you is that stocks are assets too! If they went up due to inflation, that's not "profit". It just takes more weaker dollars to buy the same stocks again. >Stocks objectively rose by a lot more than 30%. I don't want to argue with you about what actual inflation was. Again, if inflation was 30% and stocks went up 60%, you have to figure inflation into the actual earnings to see if profits are actually good (i.e., your spending power increased by the expected amount). You can take losses in spending power as the numbers keep going up dramatically. It's not profit (in the most meaningful sense) unless your spending power goes up. >I addressed salary in my earlier comment. If your salary didn't have any extra increase because of inflation, your employer is screwing you over, stop letting them do that. You didn't actually address it because you keep missing the point. Number goes up != profit. As for employers, they suffer from inflation too. Even if you have the luxurious position of being able to name your price, your employer might simply not have the money. Inflation represents theft, and someone always gets screwed. >"Own some stock" is not a scheme, it's what you're supposed to do with significant amounts of savings. That is a strategy proposed for NPCs, and it isn't right for everyone. Even if it was, it does not really protect you from rapid inflation, because inflation is a sign of a bad economy. It's probably better than holding currency directly but profits may not keep up with inflation. And most of all, stockholders don't benefit from inflation. They at best avoid some of the effects of inflation, in the best case. >I think it's fair to count on an extra salary increase. Tons of people got extra salary increases from inflation. Were they enough to compensate for all of inflation? Usually not. But they were enough to reduce the losses. Which is all I need to make my point. That's a weak ass point, bro. Lots of people have fixed incomes, or otherwise can't demand salary hikes and get them in a timely manner. Wages always trail inflation, and the official cooked numbers are used to gaslight employees into taking less. Many workers get fired when their companies lose money due to inflation. There is no free lunch. >Especially because lower wage jobs got better increases, and higher wage jobs correlate to owning at least a few thousand dollars of stock. I don't believe they got better increases. Lower wage workers have a much larger proportion of their salaries going toward expenses, and they are far more at risk of literally not having enough money due to inflation. Higher-wage workers may be more likely to participate in the stock market, but as I've laid out that is not really adequate protection from inflation. People in debt may benefit from inflation, but forking over unearned benefits to people in debt is a misuse of resources and an injustice to well-meaning creditors. If you're just trying to argue that people have ways of attempting to cope with inflation, you can stop now. I agree with that. What I object to is the attitude of "it's not so bad" that you're offering up. Inflation is bad and there's no real escape for most people. Our lives will really suck if inflation gets (more) out of hand.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> What I'm trying to tell you is that stocks are assets too! If they went up due to inflation, that's not "profit". It just takes more weaker dollars to buy the same stocks again. Let me quote the original post again. "the money I worked so hard to earn now buys 30% less" If your $1000 becomes $1600, and prices went up 30%, then you can buy more stuff then before. I don't care what you define profit as. (And if you say something about how you can buy fewer stocks, that doesn't matter. Number of shares is not an important number, only how many dollars of shares you have.) > You didn't actually address it because you keep missing the point. Number goes up != profit. The comment I replied to didn't use the word profit, and I didn't use the word profit in my reply. You brought the word profit into the conversation. I didn't use the word profit the way you wanted, I guess. So I will stop using the word profit. Problem solved. > That's a weak ass point, bro. Lots of people have fixed incomes, or otherwise can't demand salary hikes and get them in a timely manner. Wages always trail inflation, and the official cooked numbers are used to gaslight employees into taking less. You mentioned fixed incomes increased based on official CPI numbers earlier, right? That's enough to prove the point I was making. The cost of living adjustment just has to be more than 0 for my argument to be correct. Lagging doesn't affect my point as long as the lag is less than four years. Gaslit too-small numbers don't affect my point as long as the gaslit numbers are still above 0. > If you're just trying to argue that people have ways of attempting to cope with inflation, you can stop now. I agree with that. What I object to is the attitude of "it's not so bad" that you're offering up. Inflation is bad and there's no real escape for most people. Our lives will really suck if inflation gets (more) out of hand. No, that's not my point at all. Let's have an example number. For this example let's pretend prices went up 30%. If I say "relative to your income and savings, you're paying 25% more", I'm not saying "it's not so bad". That situation is really bad. I'm just saying it's not 30%. And it's important to realize that those numbers are different if we want to do accurate calculations about inflation. I'm not pointing out the difference for the sake of pedantry.
- wakawaka28 3y ago
  >If your $1000 becomes $1600, and prices went up 30%, then you can buy more stuff then before. Again, your money does not increase like this. Only assets do. Stocks in particular go up in price due to inflation and naturally-occurring profit. You're the one asserting that assets ought to be brought into it, and I've been telling you that assets do not avoid the consequences of inflation. >I don't care what you define profit as. >The comment I replied to didn't use the word profit, and I didn't use the word profit in my reply. You brought the word profit into the conversation. I didn't use the word profit the way you wanted, I guess. So I will stop using the word profit. Problem solved. Look, I don't think the original comment mentioned stocks either. You're the one who brought that into the equation. They did not gain because of inflation. They at best held value despite inflation. The reason they went up in terms of dollars is largely due to the depreciation of the dollar, and secondarily because of profits (using the dollar-based definition or purchasing-power definition, it doesn't matter). You're pointing to stocks as if they are a life hack for beating inflation, or even something to be taken for granted, and I'm here to tell you that they're not. >You mentioned fixed incomes increased based on official CPI numbers earlier, right? That's enough to prove the point I was making. The cost of living adjustment just has to be more than 0 for my argument to be correct. When they say the number is 6-8% and inflation is raging at 20%, your "point" is not helpful. Even if you're right, it's a pointless observation. Inflation is still bad mmmkay? >Lagging doesn't affect my point as long as the lag is less than four years. Gaslit too-small numbers don't affect my point as long as the gaslit numbers are still above 0. What does 4 years have to do with it? With even one year of high prices, you will lose a hell of a lot of money. >Let's have an example number. For this example let's pretend prices went up 30%. If I say "relative to your income and savings, you're paying 25% more", I'm not saying "it's not so bad". That situation is really bad. I'm just saying it's not 30%. > >And it's important to realize that those numbers are different if we want to do accurate calculations about inflation. I'm not pointing out the difference for the sake of pedantry. You are getting awfully pedantic. We talk about inflation in terms of price hikes because that's something that affects everyone. Accounting for all the inflation avoidance schemes and possible wage increases that people get to cope with inflation would require a different statistic. Those coping mechanisms are a red herring when it comes to the actual performance of our currency, which is what people actually care about.

Dylan16807 3y ago

> What I'm trying to tell you is that stocks are assets too! If they went up due to inflation, that's not "profit". It just takes more weaker dollars to buy the same stocks again. Let me quote the original post again. "the money I worked so hard to earn now buys 30% less" If your $1000 becomes $1600, and prices went up 30%, then you can buy more stuff then before. I don't care what you define profit as. (And if you say something about how you can buy fewer stocks, that doesn't matter. Number of shares is not an important number, only how many dollars of shares you have.) > You didn't actually address it because you keep missing the point. Number goes up != profit. The comment I replied to didn't use the word profit, and I didn't use the word profit in my reply. You brought the word profit into the conversation. I didn't use the word profit the way you wanted, I guess. So I will stop using the word profit. Problem solved. > That's a weak ass point, bro. Lots of people have fixed incomes, or otherwise can't demand salary hikes and get them in a timely manner. Wages always trail inflation, and the official cooked numbers are used to gaslight employees into taking less. You mentioned fixed incomes increased based on official CPI numbers earlier, right? That's enough to prove the point I was making. The cost of living adjustment just has to be more than 0 for my argument to be correct. Lagging doesn't affect my point as long as the lag is less than four years. Gaslit too-small numbers don't affect my point as long as the gaslit numbers are still above 0. > If you're just trying to argue that people have ways of attempting to cope with inflation, you can stop now. I agree with that. What I object to is the attitude of "it's not so bad" that you're offering up. Inflation is bad and there's no real escape for most people. Our lives will really suck if inflation gets (more) out of hand. No, that's not my point at all. Let's have an example number. For this example let's pretend prices went up 30%. If I say "relative to your income and savings, you're paying 25% more", I'm not saying "it's not so bad". That situation is really bad. I'm just saying it's not 30%. And it's important to realize that those numbers are different if we want to do accurate calculations about inflation. I'm not pointing out the difference for the sake of pedantry.

wakawaka28 3y ago
>If your $1000 becomes $1600, and prices went up 30%, then you can buy more stuff then before. Again, your money does not increase like this. Only assets do. Stocks in particular go up in price due to inflation and naturally-occurring profit. You're the one asserting that assets ought to be brought into it, and I've been telling you that assets do not avoid the consequences of inflation. >I don't care what you define profit as. >The comment I replied to didn't use the word profit, and I didn't use the word profit in my reply. You brought the word profit into the conversation. I didn't use the word profit the way you wanted, I guess. So I will stop using the word profit. Problem solved. Look, I don't think the original comment mentioned stocks either. You're the one who brought that into the equation. They did not gain because of inflation. They at best held value despite inflation. The reason they went up in terms of dollars is largely due to the depreciation of the dollar, and secondarily because of profits (using the dollar-based definition or purchasing-power definition, it doesn't matter). You're pointing to stocks as if they are a life hack for beating inflation, or even something to be taken for granted, and I'm here to tell you that they're not. >You mentioned fixed incomes increased based on official CPI numbers earlier, right? That's enough to prove the point I was making. The cost of living adjustment just has to be more than 0 for my argument to be correct. When they say the number is 6-8% and inflation is raging at 20%, your "point" is not helpful. Even if you're right, it's a pointless observation. Inflation is still bad mmmkay? >Lagging doesn't affect my point as long as the lag is less than four years. Gaslit too-small numbers don't affect my point as long as the gaslit numbers are still above 0. What does 4 years have to do with it? With even one year of high prices, you will lose a hell of a lot of money. >Let's have an example number. For this example let's pretend prices went up 30%. If I say "relative to your income and savings, you're paying 25% more", I'm not saying "it's not so bad". That situation is really bad. I'm just saying it's not 30%. > >And it's important to realize that those numbers are different if we want to do accurate calculations about inflation. I'm not pointing out the difference for the sake of pedantry. You are getting awfully pedantic. We talk about inflation in terms of price hikes because that's something that affects everyone. Accounting for all the inflation avoidance schemes and possible wage increases that people get to cope with inflation would require a different statistic. Those coping mechanisms are a red herring when it comes to the actual performance of our currency, which is what people actually care about.