4 ms·

You have completely misunderstood the point about debt. They were paying interest before, but the onset of deflation means that the real value of that interest

You have completely misunderstood the point about debt. They were paying interest before, but the onset of deflation means that the real value of that interest has increased beyond what it was. The creditor charges interest either way, but gets even more real value in a deflationary period than if the deflation had not happened. > Natural resources stay in the ground and people enjoy time off Unemployment is not time off, nor is it delayed gratification. > My point about electronics is that people delay purchases, but don't stop altogether Yes, they delay their purchases, causing a contraction of the economy that creates real suffering, hence a loss of wealth that otherwise could have existed. Consequently most of the purchases never happen, and are therefore not 'delayed' but lost. > Prudence is healthy; instant gratification consumerism is not. It is prudent for the individual and destructive to total economic output. Are you trying to deny that recessions reduce people's wealth?

mindslight 18y ago
Yes, the price of borrowing money goes up. The only thing you're doing with your debt point is pandering to those who have taken on debt instead of saved up wealth. I'm not particularly interested in encouraging more wage slaves. > Unemployment is not time off If one has wealth saved up, then what is the problem? When people don't need their jobs, it creates a much healthier employer-employee relationship. How many entrepreneurs start off in personal debt? > nor is it delayed gratification. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have more minerals in the ground, and less discarded crap in the landfill. I've got no problem depleting natural resources, but forcibly driving this process through overstimulating the economy is needlessly screwing over future generations. > causing a contraction of the economy that creates real suffering I hate being hungover too. But man, that party was killer! If your problem is withdrawal, the solution is to avoid engaging in the first place. > destructive to total economic output I suppose it's pointless to argue with someone who thinks the ultimate goal is to maximize "total economic output". Let's pass laws mandating that everybody must work 16 hours a day! Technology should be making it so we work ever less. Instead, the excess wealth is siphoned off to the bankers and government, precisely through the inflationary sleight of hand that you are advocating. But remember, deflation is scary; why should the plebs ever see the benefits of technology?
- cchooper 18y ago
  > The only thing you're doing with your debt point is pandering to those who have taken on debt instead of saved up wealth. I'm not pandering to anyone. I'm pointing out that deflation is a transfer of wealth. I'm not judging it, just pointing out the economic fact. > If one has wealth saved up, then what is the problem? If you don't care about being unemployed then that's fine. All power to you. But most people do care. > forcibly driving this process through overstimulating the economy is needlessly screwing over future generations. Recessions do not increase people's overall savings. They force people into bankruptcy and reduce total wealth, now and in the future. Recessions screw over future generations. > If your problem is withdrawal, the solution is to avoid engaging in the first place. Almost everyone suffers in a recession, not just the people who caused it. > Let's pass laws mandating that everybody must work 16 hours a day! That would be a reduction in wealth, as people would be forced to make economic decisions they otherwise wouldn't. I would never support it. > Instead, the excess wealth is siphoned off to the bankers and government, precisely through the inflationary sleight of hand that you are advocating. This is just conspiracy theory nonsense. And I'm not advocating inflation. I'm advocating a stable price level, the kind that has enabled the economic growth that has lifted millions of people out of poverty over the last decade. Inflation and deflation are both bad. However, if we are forced to choose one or the other, it is better to choose inflation.
  - mindslight 18y ago
    > If you don't care about being unemployed then that's fine. All power to you. But most people do care. Because they live paycheck to paycheck, with perhaps a finite safety net on which to make their debt payments. The need of people to be productive is another topic, which doesn't necessarily need to be (and sometimes isn't even) fulfilled by full time day job. > They [recessions] force people into bankruptcy and reduce total wealth, now and in the future Yes, which is why I'd like to stop the inflationary bubble policy. Remember the dot com bust? And then 2004? Our current problems stem from patching those up by permanently lowering interest rates. Further lowering them now will just cause another bubble that will burst in several years. > Almost everyone suffers in a recession, not just the people who caused it. Yes, but as we're talking about monetary policy, we're talking about the people who caused it. > That would be a reduction in wealth, as people would be forced to make economic decisions they otherwise wouldn't. Well if you've got a problem with the "forcing", then how about just government subsidies of 5x salary to those who work 16 hours a day? Flooding the market with cheap money is the same kind of manipulation which causes people to make economic decisions they otherwise wouldn't. > This is just conspiracy theory nonsense. I'm not saying they meet up an plan this, or even do it consciously, but there most certainly is a parasitic economy that receives all of the newly introduced money first, and therefore gets its benefits before the effects of the inflation are felt. Furthermore, the wealthy are able to hire "asset managers" to help them avoid the inflation, while the little guys have their savings eroded. > I'm advocating a stable price level ... However, if we are forced to choose one or the other, it is better to choose inflation. And if you haven't noticed, prices aren't anywhere near stable, but are generally on the rise. One can't claim to be for "stable prices" but also be against any possible drop. There will always be fluctuations, so suppressing any downwards movement will always produce a net upwards trend, not stability. But the main problem is that technology disagrees. To maintain a stable price index while technologically influenced goods are dropping requires everything else to go up. When efficiency is increasing, why should prices be stable?

mindslight 18y ago

Yes, the price of borrowing money goes up. The only thing you're doing with your debt point is pandering to those who have taken on debt instead of saved up wealth. I'm not particularly interested in encouraging more wage slaves. > Unemployment is not time off If one has wealth saved up, then what is the problem? When people don't need their jobs, it creates a much healthier employer-employee relationship. How many entrepreneurs start off in personal debt? > nor is it delayed gratification. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have more minerals in the ground, and less discarded crap in the landfill. I've got no problem depleting natural resources, but forcibly driving this process through overstimulating the economy is needlessly screwing over future generations. > causing a contraction of the economy that creates real suffering I hate being hungover too. But man, that party was killer! If your problem is withdrawal, the solution is to avoid engaging in the first place. > destructive to total economic output I suppose it's pointless to argue with someone who thinks the ultimate goal is to maximize "total economic output". Let's pass laws mandating that everybody must work 16 hours a day! Technology should be making it so we work ever less. Instead, the excess wealth is siphoned off to the bankers and government, precisely through the inflationary sleight of hand that you are advocating. But remember, deflation is scary; why should the plebs ever see the benefits of technology?

cchooper 18y ago
> The only thing you're doing with your debt point is pandering to those who have taken on debt instead of saved up wealth. I'm not pandering to anyone. I'm pointing out that deflation is a transfer of wealth. I'm not judging it, just pointing out the economic fact. > If one has wealth saved up, then what is the problem? If you don't care about being unemployed then that's fine. All power to you. But most people do care. > forcibly driving this process through overstimulating the economy is needlessly screwing over future generations. Recessions do not increase people's overall savings. They force people into bankruptcy and reduce total wealth, now and in the future. Recessions screw over future generations. > If your problem is withdrawal, the solution is to avoid engaging in the first place. Almost everyone suffers in a recession, not just the people who caused it. > Let's pass laws mandating that everybody must work 16 hours a day! That would be a reduction in wealth, as people would be forced to make economic decisions they otherwise wouldn't. I would never support it. > Instead, the excess wealth is siphoned off to the bankers and government, precisely through the inflationary sleight of hand that you are advocating. This is just conspiracy theory nonsense. And I'm not advocating inflation. I'm advocating a stable price level, the kind that has enabled the economic growth that has lifted millions of people out of poverty over the last decade. Inflation and deflation are both bad. However, if we are forced to choose one or the other, it is better to choose inflation.
- mindslight 18y ago
  > If you don't care about being unemployed then that's fine. All power to you. But most people do care. Because they live paycheck to paycheck, with perhaps a finite safety net on which to make their debt payments. The need of people to be productive is another topic, which doesn't necessarily need to be (and sometimes isn't even) fulfilled by full time day job. > They [recessions] force people into bankruptcy and reduce total wealth, now and in the future Yes, which is why I'd like to stop the inflationary bubble policy. Remember the dot com bust? And then 2004? Our current problems stem from patching those up by permanently lowering interest rates. Further lowering them now will just cause another bubble that will burst in several years. > Almost everyone suffers in a recession, not just the people who caused it. Yes, but as we're talking about monetary policy, we're talking about the people who caused it. > That would be a reduction in wealth, as people would be forced to make economic decisions they otherwise wouldn't. Well if you've got a problem with the "forcing", then how about just government subsidies of 5x salary to those who work 16 hours a day? Flooding the market with cheap money is the same kind of manipulation which causes people to make economic decisions they otherwise wouldn't. > This is just conspiracy theory nonsense. I'm not saying they meet up an plan this, or even do it consciously, but there most certainly is a parasitic economy that receives all of the newly introduced money first, and therefore gets its benefits before the effects of the inflation are felt. Furthermore, the wealthy are able to hire "asset managers" to help them avoid the inflation, while the little guys have their savings eroded. > I'm advocating a stable price level ... However, if we are forced to choose one or the other, it is better to choose inflation. And if you haven't noticed, prices aren't anywhere near stable, but are generally on the rise. One can't claim to be for "stable prices" but also be against any possible drop. There will always be fluctuations, so suppressing any downwards movement will always produce a net upwards trend, not stability. But the main problem is that technology disagrees. To maintain a stable price index while technologically influenced goods are dropping requires everything else to go up. When efficiency is increasing, why should prices be stable?